I think there are 2 subtle distinctions to be made, in how evidence should be interpreted and responded to.<p>A) Given XYZ evidence, I am 100% confident that premise ABC is true.<p>B) Given XYZ evidence, I am 100% confident that accepting premise ABC as true, is the right thing to do.<p>Sentence A is almost always false. No matter how much supporting evidence you have, the odds of the underlying premise being true, is never 100%. There is always some likelihood of all the evidence being flawed/biased/compromised in some way. Because of this, the likelihood of the underlying premise being true, is always lower than 100%.<p>That said, even if the odds of the premise being true is only 90%, sentence B could still be true. That sentence doesn't state that the premise is guaranteed to be true. Only that given what we know, accepting the premise is the most rational thing to do. Just like deciding not to buy a lottery ticket, or doubling down on your bet when you're holding a straight flush. You might still turn out to be wrong, but that doesn't negate the fact that your earlier actions were 100% the right thing to do.<p>Unfortunately, despite the significant differences between A and B, a casual reader may still mistake B for A. A non-perfectionist writer/editor may also mistakenly write A, when really, he means B. This might be the case with Kahneman's book. Given the evidence available at the time of his writing, the B interpretation of his assertions would still hold up well, and we shouldn't be denying that on the basis of 20/20 hindsight.