I understand the need for regenerative soil science - another article of mine deals specifically with the importance of the crumbled ceramic found in Terra Preta do Indo: "Ceramic Foam and Terra Preta" on Medium.

Unfortunately, that is clearly *not* the case with Bayes' Theorem in contrast to modern statistical techniques. Bayes' Theorem, on its own, is incapable of producing a Confidence Interval - those bounds which say "95% of the potential population likelihoods are within this range," for example. Without a Confidence Interval, we CANNOT feel confident about our results. Yet, Bayes' Theorem by itself makes *no* distinction between a "sample of 5,000 randomly selected representative sub-populations" compared to "asking 5 of my friends" - Bayes' Theorem is unable to address key statistical concepts. That was *why* mathematicians were able to keep publishing improvements; they were correcting for the huge gaps in Bayes' Theorem. Industry adopted these techniques because they give more accurate results than Bayes' - regardless of whether those industries value sustainability or measure long-term over short-term gains. So, industry's malignancy (which is REAL) does *not* imply that they would use an ineffectual statistical technique when they try to find "where to drill that fracking well". See how they have no motive to use ineffectual statistical techniques, regardless of being short-sighted or selfish?