I don't think we can "objectively decide which story reflects the truth about the human brain", particularly not if focusing on episodes >150 years ago where historians don't even widely agree on exactly what happened, and particularly not for any theory that "statistics is the language of the human brain" that is any more nuanced than the trivially-falsified "human thought processes invariably follow the hypothetico-deductive method and are not subject to confirmation bias, attaching significance to spurious correlations or poor selection of Bayesian priors"
But if this was a problem I was particularly motivated to study, the most satisfactory method of reaching a conclusion would be to use statistical analysis to draw conclusions about which hypotheses human thought patterns appeared to be most compatible with (from my experiments and meta-analysis of others'). I don't claim to know whether this is a refinement of my innate human tendency to be impressed by statistical support for a proposition or an unusual level of abstraction I've learned to reason at after spending too much time in an undergrad classroom.
But if this was a problem I was particularly motivated to study, the most satisfactory method of reaching a conclusion would be to use statistical analysis to draw conclusions about which hypotheses human thought patterns appeared to be most compatible with (from my experiments and meta-analysis of others'). I don't claim to know whether this is a refinement of my innate human tendency to be impressed by statistical support for a proposition or an unusual level of abstraction I've learned to reason at after spending too much time in an undergrad classroom.