[sdenton4]

I wouldn't think of Black Swan events as tail events, so much as model failures or regime-changes. As in, 'we modeled this as a time-invariant gaussian distribution, but it's actually a mixture model where the second hidden mode was triggered in the aftermath of an asteroid strike that we didn't model for, because of course we didn't.'

In re, the arguey-person you were responding to, frequentist modeling is just as bad or worse for these sorts of situations.

[Retric]

Frequentist modeling isn’t useful, but that’s not how studies are evaluated. Let’s suppose your looking at a bunch of COVID studies and you ask yourself what if one or more of them was fraudulent?

Your investigation isn’t limited to the data provided by them it’s going to look for more information beyond the paper. This isn’t a failure of frequentist models because they evaluate the study and it’s output separately.

[Karrot_Kream]

Ah yeah fair enough, I see what you mean. This is a general problem with all models though. Fundamental modeling issues will tank your conclusion.