On reflection, option 1 includes like Taleb's philosophy. At first I wrote it off as leading to arguments like "no one knows so let's do what I, an 'expert' say

On reflection, option 1 includes like Taleb's philosophy. At first I wrote it off as leading to arguments like "no one knows so let's do what I, an 'expert' say", which I hate. But it's written generically enough to include rules like Minimax, where you don't need model estimates to make a decision. This rule is very conservative, though. I think there are a fair number of people who succeed at option 3. I can think of a few people who I believe do option 3 well, but as you indicated, they're individuals. I think that the US Department of Energy is probably the closest organization that I'm aware of to succeed at this. (Or at least some DOE labs; I can say from personal experience that groups at both Los Alamos and Sandia take this fairly seriously, though I don't think it has fully permeated their culture.) I'll have to think more about this. Option 3 is my basic approach, I'd like to think that I succeed at it, e.g.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397785 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23397785 A major problem with option 3 is that it runs the risk of people claiming to do option 3 but actually doing option 2. I think this happens regularly but it's due to ignorance, not malice. Ultimately I think we need to change scientific standards and the STEM curriculum before option 3 becomes tractable on a large scale, but even then I'm not sure it'll work because it'll always be easier to claim to do option 3 while actually doing option 2. I agree with the writer that option 4 is more of a long-term goal. I wish the comments on this article focused more on #4 than what was discussed...