Singling out explicit statistical reasoning for exclusion while accepting implicit probabilistic reasoning is an epistemically arbitrary double standard, as Nesson and Cohen argued in the 1980s literature.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Double standard(as used in logic and fairness arguments): Applying different rules or judgments to similar situations—treating one case one way and another case differently, even though they're basically the same.
Epistemically arbitrary(as used in epistemology (the study of knowledge)): A decision or rule that doesn't have a good logical reason behind it—you're making an inconsistent judgment without a solid basis for why one thing is okay but another isn't.
Explicit statistical reasoning(as used in epistemology and logic): Using math and probability calculations that you openly state and show your work for—like saying 'there's a 70% chance it will rain based on the data.'
Implicit probabilistic reasoning(as used in epistemology and psychology): Making judgments about likelihood without consciously doing the math—like intuitively feeling something is probably true without spelling out the numbers or logic.

Based on where you are in your exploration