Though scientifically invalid, polygraphs function because subjects *believe* they work. This belief creates a self-sorting effect: those with something to hide are less willing to take the test, while the innocent are more willing. Information is revealed through the choice itself, not the test's results.

Establishing causation for a complex societal issue requires more than a single data set. The best approach is to build a "collage of evidence." This involves finding natural experiments—like states that enacted a policy before a national ruling—to test the hypothesis under different conditions and strengthen the causal claim.

Despite their desperation, the Dauphin's court didn't blindly trust Joan. They subjected her to a rigorous vetting process, including a physical examination to confirm her virginity and a theological inquiry by scholars at Poitiers. This was a form of medieval due diligence to mitigate the immense risk of backing a fraud or heretic.

The argument that 'liars make poor martyrs' is used to support the resurrection. It's highly improbable for a group of people to willingly endure persecution and death for a known lie, especially when there was no potential for money, power, or influence.

Following the Galileo affair, the Inquisition felt a duty to verify scientific claims in books it was censoring. They established a laboratory to replicate experiments and test their truthfulness. This process of a second, independent body recreating results is the foundation of modern scientific peer review, ironically created by a body often seen as anti-science.

Priests manipulating trials by fire was a feature, not a bug. A defendant's willingness to undergo the ordeal signaled their innocence to the priest. The priest, acting as 'God's instrument,' would then rig the test to ensure an acquittal, reinforcing the system's perceived divine legitimacy.

Before committing major resources, Dr. Glanville performed a critical experiment: testing Tim Freedy's blood against venoms he'd *never* encountered. When the blood reacted, it confirmed the existence of cross-reactive antibodies, validating the entire "universal antivenom" hypothesis from the outset and de-risking the project.

Ordeals were not barbaric tests but a clever sorting mechanism. Guilty defendants, believing God would ensure they were burned, would confess beforehand. Innocent defendants, believing God would protect them, willingly underwent the (often rigged) test, thus revealing their private information.

To counteract the brain's tendency to preserve existing conclusions, Charles Darwin deliberately considered evidence that contradicted his hypotheses. He was most rigorous when he felt most confident in an idea—a powerful, counterintuitive method for maintaining objectivity and avoiding confirmation bias.