> The only alternative is ignorance. Sometimes ignorance isn't even an option: it's mandatory. The only choice we are left with is whether to admit to ourselv

> The only alternative is ignorance. Sometimes ignorance isn't even an option: it's mandatory. The only choice we are left with is whether to admit to ourselves that we are ignorant. The choice isn't between governing peoples lives using statistics vs. governing peoples lives based on gut-instinct (or whatever). It's between using weak statistics as a pretext for governing peoples lives vs. just admitting there's a lot we don't know and choosing to give people space to figure out things for themselves. Jim Manzi, who literally built his business off of effective use of statistics, spent 10 years figuring out where to put the snickers bar at the checkout stand[0] and he admitted it was a really hard problem. Yet it's a joke compared to some issues that experts claim they can solve. I have to depend upon statistical reasoning, both directly and indirectly, for work. I understand and appreciate the validity of the methods of statistics. That doesn't mean I'm going to trust any statistics that are used to back a policy proposal. [0]http://www.weeklystandard.com/jim-manzi-talks-science-knowledge-and-freedom/article/666107 http://www.weeklystandard.com/jim-manzi-talks-science-knowle...