Our Brain Uses Statistics to Calculate Confidence, Make Decisions
> It is Kepecs' thesis that statistics - generated by the objective processing of sensory and other data - is the ultimate language of the brain.Every time I read stuff like this, I lose more confidence that the scientific method as currently applied, funded, and published is capable of truly conquering complex systems like the brain or nutrition.I read article after article like this one, where a prominent researcher conducts some experiment that shows some result.  But listening to that person talk about their work, it becomes clear that this has become their pet theory that they want to be capable of explaining everything.  As if everything we know about some system will someday be shown to be reducible to one clean, beautiful idea.Here are a few quick reasons why I find this idea to be highly implausible:- There are a dizzying number of documented cognitive biases in humans.  If statistics is the ultimate language of the brain, our software is pretty thoroughly buggy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases- Belief motivates people to do things that have absolutely no statistical justification. For example, the time that the prophecy of a teenage girl convinced a tribe of people in present-day South Africa to kill 300,000 - 400,000 of their own cattle, leading to the starvation and death of 20,000 - 40,000 people.  How does a brain built on statistics decide that this is the most rational course of action?  http://persistentfrontiers.com/xhosacattlekilling/EDIT: Several people are replying with some form of: "your examples can still show that the mind is inherently built on statistics if you think about it in way X."  Let's do a quick experiment to see if this theory is actually falsifiable.  What experiment/result would convince you that statistics is not "the ultimate language of the brain?"