That assumes you were entitled to something that nobody owed you.

If the money was never yours, can you say it was stolen from you?

Is she into me, or is she just being weird? Because usually when women do this to me, they’re being weird. But I’ve heard this is what they do when they’re into a guy. So I don’t know, but probably not.

Being an idiot in a hurry, I saw the medication Warfarin

I feel like the word Safe is being stretched really far here.
Like at this level, getting out of bed isn’t Safe.
Walking through a park isn’t Safe.

And that level of Unsafeness, is functionally meaningless.

It’s literally what their entire business is based on. Filtering good and bad traffic.

That’s what he’s doing here.
Making sure Tesla gets to take advantage of the EV subsidies.

This is about paying bills.
Rumps agenda is going to end EV subsidies. Subsidies Tesla could use, maybe even needs. Without them Tesla could be in trouble, and by extension Musk would be.

But you are if the personal incentives in your situation are bad enough.

For an extreme example. You might not want to support the black market for human organs. You know how terrible it is as a system. But you’ll die if you don’t buy a black market organ. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to give their life for that ideal? No.

It is possible (common really) for individuals to make completely rational, sensible, even correct decisions, which ultimately contribute to a larger systemically catastrophic problem. It comes from improperly aligned incentives within the system. For examples, you can reference the prisoners dilemma.

Look for Signage Displays. They’re basically TVs with different software.

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.

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?

Vernacular is literally what we’re talking about. The definition of words.

You seem to be wrapping a number of ideas around the word Believe. Most notably the idea that a belief is fixed. When I say believe, I literally mean only and exactly “Accept as true”, or “To hold as true”, nothing more. It’s literally the 1st definition. And more or less what all the other definitions are wrapped around.

What we hold as true can change at any time, and for a number of reasons. The study of them is called Epistemology. Yes. It’s a real branch of science.

It’s possible what you’re trying to get across, is the idea that science accepts nothing as “true”. It can only reject ideas as “false”. And the ideas that remain un-rejected as false, are accepted, not as true, but as the best explanation we have so far. In which case I can see your point. However, remember that beliefs aren’t fixed. They can also be rejected when new conflicting data is collected. That still sounds like what you mean by accept. Am I wrong?

Do you accept that, or believe it? What is the difference scientifically?

Webster definition 3C of Accept “to recognize as true” seems to be what I’m talking about here. Is that different than what you mean?

3C then points to Believe as a synonym. The transitive definition 1B, or intransitive 1A, seems to correlate with what Accept definition 3C means, hence the synonym nature of them. Can you clarify exactly where I’m wrong?