Earlier quoted context omitted.
I object to your conclusion that "they have no durable principles": not sure how do you get to that from two different experiences documented with a single paragraph.
Because I can assess things via probability… without needing 100% certain proof either way?
This is becoming futile: this is not even about proof, but there not even being a full account of two cases you are basing your opinion on.
Obviously, you can derive any opinion you want out of that, but while I am used to terms like "probability" being misused like this, I've generally seen a higher standard at HN.
To each their own, though. Thank you for the discourse and have a good day.