When Enough Information Is Enough
This essay is a reflection on—and, in some respects, a response to—the problem-solving philosophy outlined on my “My Approach” page. https://www.theinformedkansan.com/my-approach
Francis Bacon taught us to distrust assumption and examine the evidence. Aristotle taught us that sound judgment is not merely knowing things—it is knowing what to do in a particular situation. Modern organizations need both lessons. Too often, however, we honor Bacon by collecting more data while neglecting Aristotle’s demand for practical action.
Imagine walking into an office and finding water pouring through the ceiling. There are questions worth asking: Which pipe or fitting failed? How extensive is the damage? Why was the problem not detected earlier? But the immediate course of action is not obscure. Shut off the water.
No committee is required to establish that continued flooding is undesirable. No additional spreadsheet will make the floor any drier. Investigation matters, but it must occur alongside action—not become an excuse for postponing it.
Bacon’s empirical method gave us a disciplined way to move from observation toward reliable knowledge. It protects us from superstition, bias, and decisions based entirely on intuition. That intellectual tradition is indispensable to science and evidence-based medicine.
Aristotle offers something complementary: practical wisdom. Some decisions cannot wait for perfect knowledge because circumstances are changing and inaction has consequences of its own. The responsible person must understand the situation as well as reasonably possible, choose a course, and accept accountability for the result.
Evidence-based medicine brings research findings into the exercise of clinical judgment. The clinician weighs that evidence against professional experience, the patient’s circumstances and preferences, and the likely consequences of the available choices. At some point, those considerations must lead to a decision—even when the information is incomplete.
Organizations sometimes forget that final step. They commission surveys, request additional reports, form working groups, and schedule follow-up meetings. Each activity creates the appearance of diligence. Yet perpetual analysis can become an elaborate means of avoiding responsibility. More information is useful only when it has a reasonable chance of changing the decision.
In my earlier essay, (Understanding Before Advocacy ,https://www.theinformedkansan.com/my-approach)
I argued that we should resist advocating solutions before we have taken the time to understand the problem. That principle still stands. But understanding must have a practical threshold. It cannot mean possessing every conceivable piece of information or eliminating every uncertainty before acting.
The two ideas belong together: first understand the problem, then recognize when you understand it well enough to make a decision. Sufficient understanding means having enough information to identify the problem, evaluate the meaningful alternatives, anticipate the major risks, and act intelligently. Beyond that point, continued analysis may add detail without adding clarity.
The practical questions are straightforward:
What do we already know? What remains genuinely uncertain? Would additional information materially change the decision? What is the cost of waiting?
If the facts are incomplete but the direction is clear, leadership requires judgment. Make the best defensible decision available, monitor the results, correct course when necessary, and live with the consequences. A decision need not be perfect to be responsible.
Bacon helps us discover what is true. Aristotle helps us decide what should be done. Good problem-solving requires both—but neither philosophy supports studying the water on the floor while the building continues to flood.
Understand before advocating—but once you understand enough, decide.
Copyright 2026. The Informed Kansan. All Rights Reserved.