Nope. The problem is that there are four quadrants in statistics, not two. There are "found it and you have it", "found it and you don't have it", "didn't fin

Nope. The problem is that there are four quadrants in statistics, not two. There are "found it and you have it", "found it and you don't have it", "didn't find it and you have it" and "didn't find it and you don't have it". Optimizing one of those quadrants deoptimizes the others. If you aren't looking for something specific because your Bayesian probability got bumped by other symptoms, you're going to pop the green jellybean. https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ As someone who has been going through a lot of CT scans recently, I can tell you that they find a lot of inconsequential things. I can imagine that MRIs find even more. My doctors have been what seems to be unduly impressed with my ability to just shrug the reports off except for the specific thing that I need to get fixed. Apparently, most people freak out and they have to spend a lot of time talking them down. My response: "The CT scan results are basically saying "Sucks to get old, brah." There's only one alternative, and it's not very preferable. Now, let's get the thing we're monitoring fixed."