A Pluralist Statistician

As a statistician, I have come to appreciate that we live in an uncertain world where the truth is almost always unknown. And all the models we build are technically wrong because they are all at the end of the day an approximation to the truth. What's even more interesting is that it's possible to have different models that all get you "close enough" to the same truth. Two different equations, using different assumptions, can both produce highly accurate and useful predictions.  This is cool because in a sense, to be a ‘reasonable’  & ‘pragmatic’ statistician, one would need to believe in ‘statistical pluralism’ - the acceptance of multiple good models. 

If a reasonable statistician applies that same logic to the world, they will likely end up a "societal pluralist" as well. This means accepting the coexistence of multiple interests, ideologies, and ways of life. The shared trait is obvious: complexity rarely has one simple answer.  I’m drawn to pluralism as a philosophy precisely because it aligns with what I observe as a statistician: reality is far too messy and complex for any single, simple "truth" to capture it all.

It's fascinating, then, to see how this philosophy stacks up against other worldviews. I often observe that systems with strong absolutist claims—whether political or religious—can struggle with this kind of pluralism. When a single model (or ideology, or sacred text) is presented as the only acceptable truth, it leaves little room for other "good enough" approximations.

This is partly why I do like Hinduism despite all its flaws. My understanding is that it is inherently pluralistic. I like the idea that I can go to a Church and worship Jesus without that invalidating my own identity as a Hindu. It's related to the fact that different models can all point toward a truth that's too big for any single one to hold. I wish there were more pluralistic religions in the world. It probably would lead to a more peaceful coexistence in the world.