>As such, empirical laws that were trustworthy in the past, may become significantly less accurate, and can in fact become dangerous to rely upon too blindly.

>As such, empirical laws that were trustworthy in the past, may become significantly less accurate, and can in fact become dangerous to rely upon too blindly. Read a really good book on this a few years ago by John Kay and Mervyn King, Radical Uncertainty (https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324004776 https://wwnorton.com/books/9781324004776), where they talk about the issue of applying the logic of "known uncertain" systems (like games of poker, or volcanic eruptions) to completely dynamic "radically uncertain" systems where any attempt to quantify outcomes is effectively completely made up. Election forecasts being one example, where there's no guarantee that you know the rules of the game, if they stay constant between elections and so on. I think this is very timely because these days you see this kind of cargo cult empiricism where people will say "I am 30% confident that..." as if just talking in a quantitative language means you've somehow understood something about the future or have reason to be more confident.