I'm hesitant to answer this.  These Frequentist vs. Bayesian spats are generally unproductive, and can be nasty and juvenile.  For what it's worth, Wagenmakers is kind of a big deal, whereas largely forgotten 3k+ year old Chinese philosophers on the other hand...  

However, I would argue that the standard Frequentist interpretation of a 50% confidence interval is not that you should be 50% confident the true value lies within the interval, or that there is a 50% probability that it does.  Rather, the idea is simply that, if the same process were repeated indefinitely, the percentage of CI's that included the true value would converge to 50%.  For any given single interval, however, the probability that it includes the true value is either 0 or 1, *but you don't know which*.