It will for me always remain a source of some perplexity that when attempting to navigate “true or false” questions where sufficient evidence favoring conclusively one inference or another is lacking, individuals nonetheless form and (usually noisily) assert inferences conclusively. Take, for example, the“was Michael Jackson guilty of abusing kids?” question presently making the rounds. It seems like few have not formed absolute opinions about the answer, but the answer is unknowable, save in terms of rough probabilities.
A Bayesian analysis of the question would likely provide an “answer” that the probability of Jackson’s guilt is high, but even this would not be conclusive. I suspect the world would be a nicer, less violent place if people would rationally and humbly take time to check their assumptions rationally before opening their mouths to confidently trumpet them.