I study individuals who use frequentist models to draw uniform inferences from independent and identically distributed data. The main contribution of this paper is to show that distinct models may be consistent with empirical evidence, even in the limit when data increases without bound. Decision makers may then hold different beliefs and interpret their environment differently even though they know each other's model and base their inferences on the same evidence. The behavior modeled here is that of rational individuals confronting an environment in which learning is hard, rather than individuals beset by cognitive limitations or behavioral biases.

Hume (1748) challenged the idea that a general claim (e.g., “all swans are white”) can be validated by empirical evidence, no matter how compelling. We examine this issue from the perspective of a tester who must accept or reject the forecasts of a potential expert. If experts can be skeptical about the validity of claims then they can evade rejection strategically. In contrast, if experts are required to conclude that claims backed by sufficient evidence are likely to be true, then they can be tested and rejected. These results provide an economic rationale for claim validation based on incentive problems.