I accept also that ptterns and generalizations are sometimes legit. But, with context. This is the trick, you can use imprecise methods like "calculated risk" or carbon dating. Only if you hare morally honest enough and build a pile of context.
The issue is that abstract worldviews are difficult to resolve with generalization.
My issue with normies is they are morally bankrupt inept and unable to comprehend abstract ideas like "blackpill" or nihilism or globalist or satanist or whatever generalization they use. This is not what aristotle would have done, he was defending the use of generalization but not like this. If you do it lke this then aristotle would have thrown a chuck norris style kick into your balls and expel you from his school.
Lets think why carbon dating is usefu, even if is one of the most imprecise tools in existence. It wrks because you make assumptions super explicit, you create what is called "confidence intervals" and then you acknowledge objective limits. But, to interpret results you need also language studies and previous knowledge of history and compare dates to known facts.
if someone says "Carbon dating proves this object is exactly 4238 years old and therefore this entire historical narrative must be true" Hes a fucking liar dumbass who would be thrown in the dust by aristotle and would be covered in stones by kids in the streets full lapidation. Its morally inadmissible to behave like this, in ancient greek times people like this would have been ostracized and beaten with a stick. Nowadays instead normies are allowed to express their immorality freely for some reason. I will never understand it, I am fully in favor of physical punishment in schools like priests were used to do.
If a kid is dumb you force him to sit on chickpeas until they penetrate his skin.