Fascinating stuff.
For markets, there are many different schools of thought that would influence what is more or less "probable". Most of these would involve technical analysis, with many embracing some form of examining mob-mentality (sentiment, such as Elliott Wave Theory). In many cases, however much pundits may want to deny it, even reasonable fundamental analysis makes the inevitable correction abundantly clear. Timing, however, is hardly scientific. Perhaps this is because the sentiment of humans as a body, while it can be tracked, does not seem to be able to be scientifically quantified.
Perhaps the paranormal activity is sometimes similar. Perhaps there are "moods" or other factors that are indecipherable using any current technology. Maybe no technology at all could ever truly examine and measure it with any credibility. I have no idea - just tossing out thoughts regarding these things. I've found the study of sentiment to be very interesting, especially in light of group actions that seem to go against reason.
At the beginning of the article contrasts are made between old and new. Yet, in some cases, neither has been proven or disproven. Most notably are creation and evolution (Darwinianism, or other forms?). Neither of these have been observed scientifically. It's like studying history. We can look at evidence, but conclusions drawn tend to be subjective. Creation obviously cannot be observed. While certain adaptations (some call micro-evolution) have been observed, there is no clear evidence of one species becoming another. Would not assuming either of these be relegated to Type 1 errors, at least until/unless irrefutable proof was obtained?
Interestingly, the Type 1 and Type 2 errors are used in land restoration as well. When someone assumes something is a certain way and it's not, it can be catastrophic when they implement a plan based on errant reasoning. Of course, when they do not think a thing is true and plan accordingly, it can be equally, if not more so, disastrous. I saw where a large pond was built where it was assumed water would accumulate. This wasn't based on observing water flow, or actually on a clear wash entering the catchment. In fact, I don't know how they came up with the idea. As it turned out, it never collected any more water than what fell into it, rendering it dry most of the year. It's a classic Type 1 error. :)
Heh, just thinking out loud as I read through your amazing article. Thanks for stimulating thought.