Do you reason by assigning specific probabilities to outcomes?

Do you reason by assigning specific probabilities to outcomes? So I was reading this book called "Radical Uncertainty" by John Kay and Mervyn Allister King. They are very vitriolic in their book about standard decision theory and economics, which is based (or so they claim), on the idea that people should have perfect probabilities attached to every possibility, and have a perfect idea of the range of outcomes a decision might have. This is of course ridiculous, I think. But the question remains: are value investors like that, or does it show a more reasonable way to make decisions? Think about how you think: in your value investing journey, how does uncertainty shape your decision making process? Do you try to maximise expected utility by assigning some kind of probability to each outcome? Or do you follow Munger and revert: you think about the worst case scenario, and make sure you are not in it? Pretty curious about your experience!