One of the most interesting bits of info presented to us was that scientists seemed to underestimate uncertainty by around 50%, as said in the Dan Kammen interview. This caught me a little off guard and at the same time made total sense. Essentially, the scientific method's rigorousness is what makes it our prime framework for obtaining or refining knowledge. Because of that, we could either expect that scientists are their own worst critics and would therefore overestimate the sources of error or uncertainty (by being harsh in the evaluation of their own model, data collection or simulation computational power), or that they themselves would fall under the "myth of scientism," intensified by the fact that they have emotional attachment to their hypothesis and data. It seems that the latter is true, of course with the distinction that the inaccuracy in uncertainty prediction for scientists likely falls into a curve -- with some overestimating or underestimating uncertainty, the latter being the overall trend. Also, I believe there might also be something to be said about scientific articles publishing companies demanding statistically significant results, and how underestimating uncertainty might factor into that. Either way, very interesting data, and something I should think about myself whenever I am designing something.