> The speaker is not part of the context when evaluating the correctness of a given assertion. On a philosophical level this sounds true. On a practical level

> The speaker is not part of the context when evaluating the correctness of a given assertion. On a philosophical level this sounds true. On a practical level evaluating correctness has costs. If you tell me the James Webb Space Telescope detected this and that i won’t launch my own space telescope to verify it. I need to figure out if I trust you as a source. There if you are a crackpot journalist with seemingly no connection to JWST my trust will decrease, at least until i find independent sources. And that is a hard scientific claim where in theory one can conduct an independent experiment and judge the facts for certain. The kind of claim this one is on about is much harder to verify. It is of the form “live by these rules and you will have a better life”. There both the interpretation of the “rules” and the “better life” is fuzzy. And even if you get it right in your own experiment it will take years until you see results. Just on a practical level. Imagine that a thin and sporty person tells you that the secret of them maintaining their healty weight is starting every day by eating two scoops of ice cream. Now imagine that the same statement is said by an obese person. In both cases it takes the same amount of effort to evaluate the correctness of their statement but which case is going to make you want to investigate it more deeply?