Adam Kucharski

And there's actually a lot of

this statistical tension about a hundred years ago.

I know statistical debates kind of sound a bit boring, but it was actually this, this real, you know, people just, you know, almost like wouldn't talk to each other because it was this tension between, do you just try and get ever closer to the truth or do you have a framework that allows you to make decisions?

And I think a lot of times in life, we don't get to do the academic, I'm just going to sit on the fence.

Yeah.

I just, I don't know.

And I'm just not going to do anything with my, you know,

with life or actions, that often we have to decide.

We do something or we don't do something.

Or we say someone's guilty or we let them go free.

Or there's these decisions we have to make.

And so that process of interacting with evidence is much more pressured.

I think that was one of the real big tensions that

never fully got resolved actually.

Even how we teach statistics at school, we kind of smushed together these two very different philosophies.

One of this ever higher bar for evidence and one where we're sort of outlining a framework to make a decision based on the knowledge we have.

Yeah, I think that's a really good question.

I think that's a really good example of almost kind of weaponized certainty that you can always set the bar higher in any aspect of life.

You can set the bar higher and higher and higher to the point where you just won't do anything.

And inaction, of course, is in itself a decision.