All of that is true, but listening to her story I get the feeling that this isn't as much a case of 20 medical professionals reviewing the same information independently as it is a case where the first professional said "I think this is a case of pseudocyesis" and the next 19 all said "I don't see any reason to…

A previous version of this post incorrectly said Richard Bradley is retired. In fact, he is the current editor-in-chief of Worth. I regret the error. This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like, in the unlikely event that any editors at Worth or writers at Reason ever need to issue one.

I do not have any licenses as an engineer. I am a certified Program Management Professional (PMP).

Dictionaries are a compilation of generations of etymological research.

You take as an article of faith that it would be replaced by something other than just thinking about stuff—you can't even begin to imagine what it would entail because you can't even begin to comprehend what a world in which hypothesis testing no longer worked would be like.

More than two - as in, the two supporting pieces of evidence you've only ever been able to deploy.

Logic isn't how we hold up epistemologies (unless the epistemology under inspection is formal logic.) The logical fallacies don't matter. I mean, if you look at it that way, all science is fallacious, since it's all based on the inductive fallacy.

Certainly they could test it. They'd test it according to the new, superior epistemology.

I could do without the idiotic name-calling, frankly. The argument is pretty simple - two different words exist because they mean two different things. I've deployed evidence along a dozen different lines to support that; your response has been to hide behind dictionaries like they've decided what English words mean.…

If he didn't, in fact, state that you could "do anything" to him then I would agree that he was raped. But that statement (a tweet by his collaborators, saying that they never said you could "do anything") doesn't seem to be consistent with the facts. (Moreover, Luke Turner says "we" but Shia's statements are the only…

If two words are ever interchangeable without altering the meaning of the sentence, they're synonyms.

I can't know that there's no next best scientific method to replace the Scientific Method?

Neither one of them define "faith" and "trust" as synonyms, which is actually the position you've defended.

Neither of those dictionaries define "faith" and "trust" as synonyms, in the first definition or in any other.

Yes, I'm certainly disagreeing that "every dictionary" in the world says that "faith" and "trust" are completely synonymous concepts. You've not provided such a definition, and you will not be able to, because no dictionary makes that claim.

No, you've wrongly asserted that the words are completely synonymous concepts. No dictionary says that they are, because that's not true.

The next better thing? This just reveals that you're not thinking about this. There is no next better thing.

If it's "integral to the way we think", why do we have so many words for people who don't have faith? Why are those words so different, in both meaning and connotation, from the words that refer to people who don't have trust? ("Faithless" vs. "distrustful", etc.)

If it's not possible to be without faith, why do we…

I suppose the argument for enthusiastic consent just took a major hit with that little fart of an idea.

He was raped.