Foreword “We will follow the science”, Joe Biden, president-elect, said at a meeting in November. A president committed to science (and maybe also proven experience)! What else can you wish for? Sadly, it isn’t as easy as it sounds – there is a small hitch. What if there is no science to follow, or if the science we have points in many directions and with a trembling hand? The hallmark of science is that it helps us to manage uncertainty, but also that it is itself marred with doubt. The present pandemic is a prime example. It is not only the quality and quantity of the scientific evidence and proven experience that can raise problems. Five years from now we will celebrate the centenary of the birth of rational decision making theory. Essentially, the theory tells us that in any given decision situation the perfectly rational decision maker should choose the alternative with maximal expected utility. And if this imagined figure, the ideal agent, does it, so should we. The problem is that more often than not the science and proven experience do not allow us to express our knowledge in terms of the unique numerical uncertainty the theory requires. Furthermore, we might not