Steve

After world war two, Europe was busy putting itself back together. It left an opening that the US stepped into. And who wouldn't like to be the big dog in the yard.

The press gave Biden lots of grace all through his term and campaign, right up to the debate. At that point it was obvious to literally everyone, and they had to cover it.

Trump gets the same treatment. However trump is different, in that he has always been dumb. Seriously I'm virtually certain his IQ is under 85, even odds it's under 80. So his incoherence is the baseline. And he's spent a lifetime covering for his own dumb statements. He's uncommonly good at masking his ignorance to people. That's why the news doesn't point it out so much. Because it not new, and he's practiced at making plausible excuses.

But not on TV.
So if your sign is going to make the news, you need the asterisk.

The "No Kings" protests we just had, brought out massive numbers all over the country.

A fight against monarchy seemed to work well.

Arachnophobia!
I saw it when I was only 8 or 9.
It gave me arachnophobia.

Ask them questions. Have them explain how, why. When you find contradictions or confusion, ask how they resolve them.

It depends on the card. Most will drop you if you don't use it at all for a year or two.

Ah! Admittedly I didn't look at the second two links. You gave no description of what they were. I simply looked at the first and assumed the others were in the same vein.

And I was essentially correct in thinking you included the epistemology in the definitions of Believe and Accept. You could have simply said as much. And with those definitions you are correct.

I also didn't realize Epistemology was considered an area of philosophy, not science. Thank you.

Now I see where you're coming from and I appreciate that. Thank you.

I didn't say you said I wasn't supporting mine. Now I'm not sure you've really read carefully anything I wrote.

And you simply keep asserting your idea. Ignoring most of my arguments, examples, and questions. For instance, when I asked for the actual specific definitions you claim you and science use, you didn't provide them. Instead you ignored the most basic request for evidence possible, and suggest I'm being dogmatic in my belief, instead of you. As I said, that's interesting.

So you can't actually support your position, only point out I'm supporting mine. That's... Interesting.

I’m referring to strict definitions that are found in science.

Where exactly are the strict scientific definitions you're using for Believe and Accept? Do you have a link?
I showed you the strict definitions I was using.

Good scientists look for ways they are wrong; people holding onto beliefs look for ways to back up why they’re right.

Both of those are epistemologies. One good, and one bad. But epistemologies are only ways to reach a belief. They aren't part of the belief itself. Much like the road isn't the destination. You're including in the definition of Belief, a pattern of behavior, a specific epistemology. But it doesn't have one. Not even in common vernacular. In some specific religious contexts it might, as you say. But Belief is used in vastly more contexts than religion. Someone who believes it won't rain, isn't obligated to hold that belief when they see dark storm clouds approaching. Or are you saying they they'll have to make excuses for why it won't rain? Else they didn't actualy Believe, and just Accepted that it wouldn't rain?