Some may argue that in the case of humans, we gather extensive evidence. We assemble more facts (often from a variety of sources), we weigh the facts, we research before we arrive at careful conclusions. It is easy to communicate with humans, so we can ask them directly about what happened or didn’t happen. Unfortunately for the snails, they do not talk in a manner that we can easily understand, so we must make assumptions about them.
But this is a faulty conclusion, too. Just because we have the means to gather extensive evidence does not mean we will. It is easy to assume that the shared observations of multiple people are facts, yet their sources of facts may be questionable or even influenced by things seen or heard later.
And can we assume that the massive amounts of facts gathered is truly enough to draw a conclusion from? When can we confidently say that we’ve gathered 50% of the evidence, or 75%, or 90%? What if 50% of the observations come from a group that shared the same point of view? What if 90% of people all saw the same thing, yet someone in the missing 10% was the only person to observe a critical fact that everyone else missed?
And just because it is easy to communicate with humans, we do not all communicate clearly. Bias colors the way we talk to each other, or who we even deign worthy to talk and listen to.
When the issues of majorities and minorities, mass media, or uninformed rhetoric come into play, the tragedies that arise from faulty conclusions can be tragic.