at the risk of wading into epistemology (of which i'm certainly no expert), inferential statistics never claims to determine truth. it's a way of taking large sample sets and examining them mathematically to find little patterns in the data that may or may not support (but never confirm) a hypothesis. it's a powerful tool but that's all it does.

it's still up to our brains to try to make that last leap between data and prediction, which is something our brains are exceedingly good at, if necessarily flawed (in a schrödinger's cat kind of way).

gödel (among others) helped us find the limits of logical systems like this. i've mentioned it before (in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8169025) but i'm really looking forward to the development of non-logic based math (quantum computing?) that's more akin to how our brains work and allows for multiple, conflicting "truths" to exist simultaneously. our consciousness lives in the rational world but the rest of our brains seems to be quite content with an ambiguous, entangled reality.