> Yeah exactly, I say that it is a heuristic, you conflate it with evidence, and then you say that’s exactly the point (that it’s not evidence)? You’re not say

> Yeah exactly, I say that it is a heuristic, you conflate it with evidence, and then you say that’s exactly the point (that it’s not evidence)? You’re not saying anything that I haven’t said originally. Your supposed counter-example is beyond facile. Who-benefits presupposes that the agent has the means to affect some outcome. But no human could have arranged the rotation of the Earth.