"A deterministic system is one in which the parts interact in a perfectly predictable way. There is never any room for doubt: given a last state of the system and the programme of information by defining its dynamic network, it is always possible to predict, without any risk of error, its succeeding state. A probabilistic system, on the other hand, is one about which no precisely detailed prediction can be given. The system may be studied intently, and it may become more and more possible to say what it is likely to do in any given circumstances. But the system simply is not predetermined, and a prediction affecting it can never escape from the logical limitations of the probabilities in which terms alone its behaviour can be described." (Stafford Beer, "Cybernetics and Management", 1959)
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory - if we look for confirmations. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions. […] A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or refute it." (Karl R Popper, "Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge", 1963)
"Statistical hypothesis testing is commonly used inappropriately to analyze data, determine causality, and make decisions about significance in ecological risk assessment,[...] It discourages good toxicity testing and field studies, it provides less protection to ecosystems or their components that are difficult to sample or replicate, and it provides less protection when more treatments or responses are used. It provides a poor basis for decision-making because it does not generate a conclusion of no effect, it does not indicate the nature or magnitude of effects, it does address effects at untested exposure levels, and it confounds effects and uncertainty[...]. Risk assessors should focus on analyzing the relationship between exposure and effects[...]." (Glenn W Suter, "Abuse of hypothesis testing statistics in ecological risk assessment", Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 2, 1996)
"Until we can distinguish between an event that is truly random and an event that is the result of cause and effect, we will never know whether what we see is what we'll get, nor how we got what we got. When we take a risk, we are betting on an outcome that will result from a decision we have made, though we do not know for certain what the outcome will be. The essence of risk management lies in maximizing the areas where we have some control over the outcome while minimizing the areas where we have absolutely no control over the outcome and the linkage between effect and cause is hidden from us." (Peter L Bernstein, "Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk", 1996)
"Overcoming innumeracy is like completing a three-step program to statistical literacy. The first step is to defeat the illusion of certainty. The second step is to learn about the actual risks of relevant events and actions. The third step is to communicate the risks in an understandable way and to draw inferences without falling prey to clouded thinking. The general point is this: Innumeracy does not simply reside in our minds but in the representations of risk that we choose." (Gerd Gigerenzer, "Calculated Risks: How to know when numbers deceive you", 2002)
"The goal of random sampling is to produce a sample that is likely to be representative of the population. Although random sampling does not guarantee that the sample will be representative, it does allow us to assess the risk of an unrepresentative sample. It is the ability to quantify this risk that will enable us to generalize with confidence from a random sample to the corresponding population." (Roxy Peck et al, "Introduction to Statistics and Data Analysis" 4th Ed., 2012)
"Decision trees are an important tool for decision making and risk analysis, and are usually represented in the form of a graph or list of rules. One of the most important features of decision trees is the ease of their application. Being visual in nature, they are readily comprehensible and applicable. Even if users are not familiar with the way that a decision tree is constructed, they can still successfully implement it. Most often decision trees are used to predict future scenarios, based on previous experience, and to support rational decision making." (Jelena Djuris et al, "Neural computing in pharmaceutical products and process development", Computer-Aided Applications in Pharmaceutical Technology, 2013)
"Without context, data is useless, and any visualization you create with it will also be useless. Using data without knowing anything about it, other than the values themselves, is like hearing an abridged quote secondhand and then citing it as a main discussion point in an essay. It might be okay, but you risk finding out later that the speaker meant the opposite of what you thought." (Nathan Yau, "Data Points: Visualization That Means Something", 2013)
"The more complex the system, the more variable (risky) the outcomes. The profound implications of this essential feature of reality still elude us in all the practical disciplines. Sometimes variance averages out, but more often fat-tail events beget more fat-tail events because of interdependencies. If there are multiple projects running, outlier (fat-tail) events may also be positively correlated - one IT project falling behind will stretch resources and increase the likelihood that others will be compromised." (Paul Gibbons, "The Science of Successful Organizational Change", 2015)
"Roughly stated, the No Free Lunch theorem states that in the lack of prior knowledge (i.e. inductive bias) on average all predictive algorithms that search for the minimum classification error (or extremum over any risk metric) have identical performance according to any measure." (N D Lewis, "Deep Learning Made Easy with R: A Gentle Introduction for Data Science", 2016)
"Premature enumeration is an equal-opportunity blunder: the most numerate among us may be just as much at risk as those who find their heads spinning at the first mention of a fraction. Indeed, if you’re confident with numbers you may be more prone than most to slicing and dicing, correlating and regressing, normalizing and rebasing, effortlessly manipulating the numbers on the spreadsheet or in the statistical package - without ever realizing that you don’t fully understand what these abstract quantities refer to. Arguably this temptation lay at the root of the last financial crisis: the sophistication of mathematical risk models obscured the question of how, exactly, risks were being measured, and whether those measurements were something you’d really want to bet your global banking system on." (Tim Harford, "The Data Detective: Ten easy rules to make sense of statistics", 2020)
"Behavioral finance so far makes conclusions from statics not dynamics, hence misses the picture. It applies trade-offs out of context and develops the consensus that people irrationally overestimate tail risk (hence need to be 'nudged' into taking more of these exposures). But the catastrophic event is an absorbing barrier. No risky exposure can be analyzed in isolation: risks accumulate. If we ride a motorcycle, smoke, fly our own propeller plane, and join the mafia, these risks add up to a near-certain premature death. Tail risks are not a renewable resource." (Nassim N Taleb, "Statistical Consequences of Fat Tails: Real World Preasymptotics, Epistemology, and Applications" 2nd Ed., 2022)
"Any time you run regression analysis on arbitrary real-world observational data, there’s a significant risk that there’s hidden confounding in your dataset and so causal conclusions from such analysis are likely to be (causally) biased." (Aleksander Molak, "Causal Inference and Discovery in Python", 2023)
"[Making reasoned macro calls] starts with having the best and longest-time-series data you can find. You may have to take some risks in terms of the quality of data sources, but it amazes me how people are often more willing to act based on little or no data than to use data that is a challenge to assemble." (Robert J Shiller)
