Which leads us right back to cite or STFU.

If the original wording is kept about the empirical claim justifying belief, then it can only be because there is something to cite.

Until then the claim is contingent upon information that doesn't exist.

A contingent claim is necessarily neither true nor false.

More significantly, as the Austrian School proved, it is even contingent when validated.

It is only true because it could later be proven false.

Centuries of belief and proof can be undone by one solid refutation; provided that it meets the usual scientific criteria; open methodology of the experiment, repetition of the results in tests by independent agents &tc.

Thus far nothing in the way you structure your claims about empirical assertions leads me to believe that any of them meet the standards to be empirically validated; because you seem to avoid keeping the contingent claim ambivalent prior to the proof.

In the popular imagination the job of science is to prove things for us. Popper understood that science is nothing more than a tested body of knowledge. And the only real value lies in the disproof. This is the only reason we aren't reading entrails for omens about the future. :)

You seem allergic to ambiguity in the unproven assertion. ( Which is why your FAQ states you broke from B4UACT. ) And you dismiss much of science as irrelevant when it might disprove a claim.

Its a shame. Because I'd like to see all your reading on the Austrian School have an impact on your future evaluations and claims.

Dante