That seems like a false choice. Why wouldn’t you do both?
I think you’re more convincing in objecting to the quantitative approach than in defending the scenario approach. Maybe neither one is any good. So another alternative would be to do neither, and avoid the risk of convincing yourself you understand what’s going to happen when you really don’t.
You can still assume the things you’re nearly certain of, if that’s useful.
… and how do you plan to use this understanding, assuming you get any? Is it actually going to affect your actions?
That seems like a false choice. Why wouldn’t you do both?
I think you’re more convincing in objecting to the quantitative approach than in defending the scenario approach. Maybe neither one is any good. So another alternative would be to do neither, and avoid the risk of convincing yourself you understand what’s going to happen when you really don’t.
You can still assume the things you’re nearly certain of, if that’s useful.
… and how do you plan to use this understanding, assuming you get any? Is it actually going to affect your actions?