This just in from the front lines of the War on the Unusual:
University of Pennsylvania economics professor Guido Menzio was solving a set of differential equations on a plane departing the Philadelphia airport when the woman next to him surreptitiously passed a note to a flight attendant telling them she thought he was a terrorist because of the strange things he was writing on a pad of paper. The plane returned to the gate where he was questioned. At least this time the pilot had enough sense not to kick him off the flight.
Remember folks, if you see something say something!
(Score: 1) by Lester on Monday May 16 2016, @10:45AM
You are completely right. We have to make a lot of decisions with limited data and knowledge.
You can use science or you can use... let's call it intuition. It's amazing in how many cases intuition works well, not only well, but sometimes faster than science. In fact, "What are the scientific facts behind this intuition that seems to work always?" is a common topic of research.
If you can't apply science, because science for that matter doesn't exist, or because a quick acceptable decision now is better than a perfect solution latter, uses intuition. Nevertheless intuition has also a lot of pitfalls and sad record of wrong decisions. So, whenever If you can apply science, apply science. It's the safest bet
So, the first problem is when you insist in using intuition instead of science. And the really big problem is when, instead of using science or intuition, you use bad science or intuition disguised of science.