You don’t get proof from Bayesian reasoning (data). That’s not how science is done. The best proof of any idea is whether it is a good logical explanation that

You don’t get proof from Bayesian reasoning (data). That’s not how science is done. The best proof of any idea is whether it is a good logical explanation that stands up to criticism. Take Newton’s ideas about gravity and the motion of bodies for example. The day before Einstein came up with general relativity, Newton’s ideas had the most possible data which confirmed they were true. In other words, they were as wrong as they ever had been. Relativity predicted the warping of spacetime, which was shown to be real in a single experiment. It’s not like more data is needed to make it more true. Back to the original topic: If this ACT stuff is a good explanation for your behavior, and if it works for you, what more data is needed?