Actuarial science is based on statistics.
Frequentist statistics, AFAICT.
It also is based on unscientific dogma related to business 'best practice'. For instance, asset pricing based on CAPM and other financial assumptions that aren't vetted by scientists.
It occurred to me this morning that, if it's actually valuable, generating true beliefs about the world must be someone's comparative advantage. If truth is instrumentally important, important people must be finding ways to pay to access it. I can think of several examples of this, but the one that caught my attention was actuarial science.
I know next to nothing about what actuaries actually do, but Wikipedia says:
Why, that sounds right up our alley.
So what I'm wondering is: for those who can afford it, wouldn't it be worth contracting with actuaries to make important personal decisions? Not merely with regards to business, but everything else as well? My preliminary ideas include: