I wonder if he was diagnosed with cancer whether or not he'd agree or disagree with the scientific evidence of his diagnosis? I wonder at what number of doctors he would cease getting "second" opinions? He's the worse kind of idiot because I don't believe for a second he "believes" what he's saying.

I may "believe" in God--faith does not require empirical evidence. However I am persuaded by scientific evidence. One does not need to "believe in" climate change because it is not an article of faith, accepted without evidence.

This is evidence of the failure of education to make that difference clear. Believing in is different from persuaded by--something my students have a hard time distinguishing.