This is one example of scholars not understanding the high-impact rare event. There is a well-known philosophical conundrum called the "lottery paradox," originally posed by the logician Henry Kyburg, which goes as follows: "I do not believe that any ticket will win the lottery, but I do believe that all tickets will win the lottery." To me (and a regular person) this statement does not seem to have anything strange in it. Yet for an academic philosopher trained in classical logic, this is a paradox. But it is only so if one tries to squeeze probability statements into commonly used logic that dates from Aristotle and is all or nothing. An all or nothing acceptance and rejection ("I believe" or "I do not believe") is inadequate with the highly improbable. We need shades of belief, degrees of faith you have in a statement other than 100% or 0%. One final philosophical consideration. Life is convex and to be seen as a series of derivatives. Simply put, when you cut the negative exposure, you limit your vulnerability to unknowledge.