Originally Posted by
s0ssos
No, that's the wrong way to look at it.
What you mean is with little information it is hard to make a good conclusion. Which is correct. But do you wait til more Boeing 737max crashes occur or you do something before you collect all the information? Or you wait and there aren't more crashes?
Corollary: if you decide to wait, and say it is safe, and later are proven wrong, are you liable?
By good conclusion, you seem to mean good decision and here I would argue that we need to define what good means.
In this example, I would argue that 2 out of 350 crashed still gives me a very imprecise estimate of the true probability, yet given the potential for a disasterous outcome, my risk aversion would cause me to make a very conservative decision here. However, I still can't conclude very much from the data we have.