Search Results

Written By: Tiago Caixado With the emergence of a new left-of-centre party headed by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, British politics is set for a shake-up that not many could anticipate even a year ago. Ex-Labour leader Corbyn and suspended party member Sultana called in July 2025 for the formation of a new political movement. The provisional name, "Your Party", was promoted through a simple website, with a vow of a grass-roots platform on a foundation of basic wealth and power redistribution, public service nationalism, a strengthened welfare state, and an uncompromising anti-war stance with vocal opposition to British policy in Gaza. The response was swift and phenomenal. Within a period of hours, over eighty thousand had registered. In a week it had reached six hundred thousand, and by August had enrolled over seven hundred thousand members, bringing the new party within striking distance of Labour and the Tories in terms of popular support. Such rapid mobilisation means that discontent with Keir Starmer's Labour has congealed into a genuine movement, one that can split the centre-left vote for the first time in modern British politics. The charm of Corbyn and Sultana's project lies in its ideological differentiation. In contrast to Starmer's cautious centrism, which has been criticized as sounding managerial and dry, "Your Party" proudly invokes socialist principles and promises to reverse privatizations which have organised the British state since the Thatcher government. Zarah Sultana has been especially outspoken, declaring the 2029 election as one of socialism or barbarism, a line that has struck very deeply with young campaigners and those who are disillusioned by what they see as compromises from Labour leadership. The reaction. Should have expected. Been one of skepticism. Pundits in The Guardian cautioned that the absence of organisational form, a fixed system of leadership, and even a definitive title may condemn the movement to being a protest movement and not a governing opposition. But others observe that the number of people who supported it initially is such that there must be something more profound going on. As Al Jazeera reports, a YouGov survey estimates that nearly one in five Britons are already open to voting for the new party, a figure far outside the normal range of backing for marginal left-wing endeavors in the United Kingdom This too must be placed within the larger context of British politics. The two-party system has been tested for decades, with the Liberal Democrats, UKIP, and now Reform UK proving that populist or single-issue parties can challenge electoral orthodoxy. Reform UK particularly has surfed on the tide of anti-immigration and national identity emotions on heart-string appeals to win over disillusioned Labour and Conservative voters. A Financial Times analysis recently described how right-wing populism has been more successful at mobilising voters in the short term, while left-wing populism has largely struggled to convert grassroots momentum into institutional influence over the long term. Zarah Sultana is one of the leading names of this new generation of the left. Elected with a growing majority in 2024, she became famous nationwide for her strident denunciation of British arms sales to Israel and her robust denunciation of Starmer's Gaza policy. Her suspension from Labour then provided the spark many campaigners had long hoped for. Her decision to co-found a new party with Corbyn has made her a lightning rod for debate about the future of the British left. To some of their supporters, she symbolizes the generational turn towards a politics of climate justice, anti-imperialism, and radical equality. To others, she is proof of the left's inability to absorb and participate in pragmatic government. Whether "Your Party" takes root as a permanent influence or vanishes as another short-lived experiment is up to the extent to which it is able to institutionalise its early momentum. British political history provides both models. The Social Democratic Party of the 1980s transitorily exploded then lapsed back into merger with the Liberals. By contrast, UKIP never achieved more than a handful of seats but changed the politics agenda by demanding the Brexit referendum. Corbyn and Sultana's faction can either way go, but the scale alone of early backing against it means that there is little chance that this anger with Labour under Starmer is a flash in the pan. The irony of the circumstance is that Labour has just recaptured power after over a decade out of power, and already its restive heartland has produced a split. Keir Starmer's emphasis on competence, moderation, and electability succeeded in displacing the Conservatives but not sufficiently to give hope to those who had longed to see a project of transformation. Over against this stands the shadow of Tony Blair. Blair was also blamed for diluting Labour's socialist roots, yet his vision for New Labour and the Third Way permeated so thoroughly the centre ground that he was able to win three consecutive general elections. For those of the left who accused him, the division that now exists under Starmer is a delayed accounting for the compromises which Blair brought in during the 1990s. What is clear is that British politics is once again heading into turbulence. The formation of Corbyn and Sultana's new party is proof both of the desire for radical alternatives and of the fragility of Labour's hold on its traditional coalition. Whether or not this will transform the system in the way that Blair's New Labour did, or prove to be a symbolic protest, will be one of the most important political questions of the next decade. For now, the record of Tony Blair as Labour's golden boy is a claim that vision, leadership, and the capacity to remake oneself can take a party from debacle to hegemony. The challenge for the new left is whether it possesses the same capacity to reverse fortunes in a period where populism, fragmentation, and disillusionment are shaping the politics of countries. Works Cited: https://apnews.com/article/uk-politics-labour-corbyn-new-party-sultana-b89aba06138b952fef79c7612e15c866 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_Party_%28UK%29 https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2025/07/04/new-left-wing-party-in-uk-touted-to-challenge-government-on-gaza/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/aug/01/jeremy-corbyn-zarah-sultana-new-party-launch-radical https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/15/corbyn-sultana-to-form-uk-party-flash-in-the-pan-or-real-alternative https://www.ft.com/content/27549b18-cd46-4aa1-a5f5-4658ad6caa50

Written by: Vasco Ventura Rego It's not uncommon for us to find similarities between our past and our present. The human mind has developed incredible pattern recognition capabilities, so it’s only natural. You'd think, however, that by recognizing these errors of the past and the similarities that can be drawn between past and present, we’d have learnt our lesson and know what to do. Well, think again! Very, and I mean very, often do we see painfully similar events and mistakes be repeated throughout history, birthing the expression “history repeats itself“.  But since history isn't always the same (we didn’t have ICBMs and Atomic bombs 100 years ago), I prefer “history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme!”. In this article, we’ll compare two distinct wars and events, with different people, and see how locations and time periods can change, but politics never does! In the year of 1938, Europe seemed to be on the brink of war. Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia with the aim of uniting the German-speaking people who lived in the Sudetenland with Germany. Czechoslovakia was protected by Britain and France, who promised to uphold its sovereignty and independence. In late June of 2025, Israel and Iran were at the highest point of tensions they had ever been, with frequent missile strikes against both military and civilian targets in either nation. Israel claimed that Iran was a threat to global security, claiming they were developing WMDs. Iran had a very aggressive stance towards Israel's sovereignty, posting threatening messages on the social media platform X, calling for the destruction of Israel.  To avoid a war, the then-prime minister of the UK, Neville Chamberlain, went to Munich in September of that year to negotiate a settlement between Germany and Czechoslovakia and avoid a war. Funnily enough, the Czechoslovaks were not represented at this meeting and had no say in its outcome. The conference decreed the Sudetenland would be given to Germany, so long as Hitler didn’t invade the rest of the country.  To reduce tensions, President Trump attacked key bunkers with B2 bombers, in theory making Iran unable to produce nuclear weaponry. This would've removed Israel’s need to attack Iran and should've scared Iran into peace with America’s immense military capabilities. Shortly after the attack, Trump announced a ceasefire, which was too short, so there wasn’t a chance to host any proper negotiations or to allow armed forces to halt all operations. So short in fact, Iran denied agreeing or negotiating it.  Chamberlain returned triumphant to the UK, waving his treaty and famously saying, “peace in our time”. War averted, peace assured, Chamberlain was a hero. But regardless, Trump was a hero on American news channels, the Man who got in there, did the job, and ended the war. 6 months later, Hitler invades the rest of Czechoslovakia, violating the agreement and edging Europe closer to the Second World War. Britain and France did not come to the aid of Czechoslovakia, but it was the last straw, and on the 3rd of September 1939, 2 days after Hitler invaded Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany.  Not even two hours after the ceasefire was announced, an Iranian rocket struck a building in Israel, killing 6 civilians and injuring many more. Israel rapidly stated that it would retaliate, and the ceasefire was over. Peace was no more. Now we only speculate how the conflict will develop. We repeated our mistake, the lack of representation of both parties, and the poor implementation of the agreement. By giving Germany the Sudetenland immediately and without warning, Britain gave the Germans all of Czechoslovakia's fortifications and gave them no time to prepare new defenses to maybe stand a chance against a German invasion. By placing the ceasefire into effect immediately, without the agreement of both parties, the ceasefire could not be effectively communicated to all sectors of the army, not all planes and rockets could be grounded, and through the lack of preparation and rashness of the decision, Israel was given a pretext to continue the war. We made the same mistake and got the same consequences. This way we highlight the importance of history, of learning it and studying it, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Let’s hope President Trump reads his history books and does not commit the same mistake again.  Oh and one last thing common to both, you can’t negotiate with a tyrant! Sources: Walsh, B. (2018) Cambridge IGCSE and O level History Option B: The 20th Century . Hodder Education The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2021, April 29). Munich agreement summary. Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/summary/Munich-Agreement N/A, (2025, June 23). Trump claims ceasefire reached between Israel and Iran. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/6/23/trump-claims-ceasefire-reached-between-israel-and-iran Regencia, T., Motamedi, M., Quillen, S., Sullivan, R., Harb, A., & Magee, C. (2025, June 25). Updates: Trump warns Israel not to attack Iran as fragile ceasefire holds. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/6/24/live-trump-announces-ceasefire-no-confirmation-from-israel-iran

Written by: Vasco Ventura Rego On Sunday the 20th of July London’s Chinatown was the stage to a large protest and march from the Falun Gong Chinese spiritual movement against the CCPs persecution of religious and spiritual movements in China. It's nothing recent, it’s been ongoing for 26 years actually and has taken the lives of men, women and children all over China. It rarely makes headlines, overshadowed by the other crises and tragedies of the world, even though I feel that it’s more gruesome and brutal than many others. I spoke with Sanny, a volunteer at the protest, to learn more about the situation and what is being done about it internationally. The protests in London this weekend were peaceful, featuring a marching band, Falun Gong symbols such as the swastika and some posters with anti CCP messages such as “China ≠ CCP” and “celebrating 446 million (people) quitting (the) CCP”. They circled Chinatown a couple of times and distributed pamphlets to raise awareness concerning the situation in China. I ran into the protest out of sheer luck and this is where I met Sanny, a volunteer at the protest coordinating the people handing out leaflets and handing some out too. Protestors display anti CCP messages on signs (taken by Vasco Rego, Lisle Street, London. 20th July 2025) “They take our members and take them to concentration camps” said Sanny when I asked her what the CCP was doing to the persecuted groups. When I asked her what happens in these camps Sanny said “torture, slave labour and selling (forcefully harvested) organs”. The issue of forceful harvesting in China is very real, “They take our blood and tissue and sell it” said Sanny about these practices in the camp. in 2019 sir Geoffrey Nice, who had been the prosecutor at the international criminal tribunal for Yugoslavia said he was “certain that Falun Gong (is used) as a source - probably a principal source - of organs for forced organ harvesting” ( Bowcott, 2019) The prosecution isn't unique to Falun Gong but extends to almost all religious and ethnic groups in China, when we asked Sanny who suffers from this prosecution she said “Falun Gong, Christians, Uyghurs, Tibetans and other ethnicities”. This information is backed by the UNHRC, with UNHRC experts saying “Forced organ harvesting in China appears to be targeting specific ethnic, linguistic or religious minorities…” (The list of experts can be accessed via the link in the sources). Other sources like the Guardian and the Telegraph as well as activist groups state that the Chinese also carry out involuntary blood tests and X-rays. The UN defines genocide as “… act committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” 1 . The UN then names a series of actions which count as genocide (check the sources for access to this list) and China has been accused of all them for multiple groups. The CCP has been carrying out the mass imprisonment of these groups in camps, and brutal and inhumane medical practices as well as tens of thousands of executions. I personally enjoy drawing parallels between history and current events, and there are many comparisons that can be drawn. “History repeats itself” we tend to say and sadly it seems to be doing so here, as the CCP appears to have taken on the model of mass killing of specific ethnicities and minorities similar to the holocaust, a horrendous genocide that ravaged Europe during the Second World War. So what is being done? Firstly many countries are trying to shut down the gruesome international market for these organs by prohibiting their citizens from travelling to China for transplant procedures. On this list so far we have Israel, Italy and Spain. Furthermore the EU has condemned China’s actions against the Uyghurs and in 2024 passed a resolution urging its member states to end extradition treaties with China and recognises the persecution of Falun Gong since 1999. The UN has stated that it is alarmed by these claims, and has experts looking into the situation The efficiency of these measures is dubious, as according to the telegraph China would be tripling the facilities used to forcefully harvest minority organs, meaning this brutal practice is not only continuing but also growing. This statement comes after the opening of six new medical centres in Xinjiang, an area with low organ donation rates. Xinjiang is an area with almost ten million Uyghurs, one of the oppressed groups of whom nearly half a million are incarcerated ( Mendelson , 2025). The Chinese reject any accusations of genocide and claims of forced organ harvesting saying all practices were stopped in 2014, however to this day evidence continues to flow to the press and UN claiming otherwise. Testimonials, disappearances and discrepancies in CCP numbers show that these heinous crimes go on today. A group of women at a detention center in Xinjiang. (Credit: The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation/AFP via Getty Images)  I truly hope, although it seems unlikely, that the CCP stops its actions. More realistically though I hope to, in the near future, see more countries take action such as joining the previously mentioned countries in banning their citizens from travelling to China for organ transplants, condemning China’s actions or following the EU resolution and ending their extradition treaties with China. Let’s hope that actions are taken by the international community to put an end to this large scale and brutal genocide. According to the convention of the prevention and punishment of the Crime of genocide. Sources: Definition of Genocide: United Nations. (n.d.). Definitions of Genocide and related Crimes | United Nations. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition Bowcott, O. (2019, June 17). China is harvesting organs from detainees, tribunal concludes. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/17/china-is-harvesting-organs-from-detainees-uk-tribunal-concludes Texts adopted - The ongoing persecution of Falun Gong in China, notably the case of Mr Ding Yuande - Thursday, 18 January 2024. (n.d.). © European Union, 2024 - Source: European Parliament. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2024-0037_EN.html Lee, L. (2024, October 11). EU condemns China for human rights violations against Uyghurs. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/eu-condemns-china-for-human-rights-violations-against-uyghurs-/7819503.html Mendelson, A. (2025, July 3). China ‘to triple number of Uyghur organ-harvesting centres.’ The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/07/03/china-triples-forced-organ-harvesting-hubs-target-uyghurs/?ICID=continue_without_subscribing_reg_first Sanny, (2025, July 20). Lisle street, Chinatown, London. Personal interview  For list of UNHCR experts consult: Unknown (2021, 14 June) China: UN human rights experts alarmed by ‘organ harvesting’ allegations. UNHCR https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2021/06/china-un-human-rights-experts-alarmed-organ-harvesting-allegations

By: Vasco Ventura Rego The Pursuing Peace conference in Alaska this Friday left us all with many more questions than answers. The two-hour meeting between President Trump and Putin aimed to bring peace to Ukraine, or so we assume, since no official objectives were set for this meeting. Very little was actually planned for the meeting or released to the public, as neither president answered any questions afterward, and the conference setup was incredibly unorthodox for a diplomatic meeting. The speeches given after the summit were also incredibly vague and empty, leaving us to infer and assume what went on in the meeting from contextual clues and the tone and body language of both presidents. It was a short and uneventful meeting, which came to no avail, as no deal or ceasefire was agreed upon, that had the world waiting on the edge of its seat. In the buildup to the meeting Vladimir Putin had stated he would not back down from Russia’s demands in this peace deal. These demands were Ukraine’s full withdrawal from two of the illegally annexed regions in the Donbass region, Luhansk and Donetsk. In “return,” he would return the small territory Russia occupies in the north, such as Sumy, and freeze the advance of Russian troops in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. He also demanded that Ukraine renounce its NATO and EU bid and accept heavy deviation. President Zelensky had declared that he would not accept any of these terms and would not offer any territory to Russia. However, Donald Trump decided not to invite him to this conference, and therefore he was not able to vocalize his will. It would appear Trump acted alone, for he knew what was best for Ukraine, much like Chamberlain in 1938. Trump was less clear in what he wanted for Ukraine and what his demands were coming into the meeting; however, he aimed for at least a ceasefire and stated he simply wanted “to find out where everybody stands.” Map showing regions with Russian presence and what Putin wants to happen to them. Pink and red regions are over 50% occupied by Russian troops. Putin wants Ukraine to withdraw from the red regions and promises to freeze frontlines in the pink regions. Map from the Institute for the Study of War showing Russian frontlines in Ukraine and the territories defined as “Novorossiya” by Russia. The red line shows the extent of Russian advances and occupations as of April 21st. Trump was optimistic, however, declaring, “I think it’s gonna be a good meeting,” hoping his business skills could solve a war. At the end of the day, nothing was solved, as no deals were sealed and no ceasefire agreed upon. Furthermore, no concrete information about what was discussed was passed on to the outside. The little we have comes from anonymous sources from the two delegations or officials from either nation’s government. There wasn’t even an agreed-upon date for Trump’s so-desired future meeting; the only related statement was a small comment in rare English from President Putin saying, “Next time in Moscow.” After the meeting, President Trump told us he would make some calls, including to President Zelensky, who he would meet for peace talks, and to some European leaders today. Hopefully, he will be more prepared for this meeting and will take a more diplomatic approach rather than relying on his business-world skills, and won’t fly B2 and fighter jets over the foreign leader in hopes of intimidating them. What to take from the meeting Very little factual information was actually released to the press, so journalists and news outlets had to make many inferences to come to any conclusions. These inferences had to be made off of body language, contextual clues, and tone due to the vagueness and numbing political correctness and emptiness of all press releases and both presidents’ speeches. In politics and war, we tend to declare winners and losers, so who was the winner at this summit? I rather confidently award this victory to Vladimir Putin. His first victory comes over the ICC. The Russian president is a convicted and wanted war criminal by the ICC. For this reason, he has not made any trips into Western countries for three years, fearing arrest, and no Western leaders have invited him to conferences. On Friday, however, he was welcomed into the US on a red carpet with a warm greeting from President Trump and a comfortable presidential limo waiting for him. In this way, Trump continued to challenge the ICC by welcoming a wanted international criminal into their territory. The president undermined the UN and the ICC’s authority and also undermined Western commitment against Russian war crimes in Ukraine. Trump and Putin stand next to each other in Alaska, [Gavriil Grigorov/Pool, Sputnik via AFP] His second victory came over Donald Trump himself, who unknowingly gave Putin everything he wanted and got nothing in return. He came into the meeting hoping for a ceasefire and said there would be severe consequences, such as tariff hikes, if Moscow didn’t cooperate. There was no ceasefire, no agreement, and also no consequences or sanctions. Putin got what he wanted: a platform to speak, confront Europe and the world, lay out his terms, and suffer no consequences while continuing military actions — something he stated he wanted. Trump, hopefully unknowingly, served as a tool for Putin. While Trump’s words claimed the meeting went very well, his resigned tone and lack of energy, which heavily contrasted with his normal state, indicated otherwise. Before the summit, Trump had stated that the meeting would end very quickly if it was bad. His display of strength with B2 bombers and fighter jets flying overhead, which was meant to intimidate, ended up being a humiliation, as he left empty-handed and Putin returned to Moscow triumphant. Trump’s words claimed victory, but his tone betrayed him, signaling to the outside world that something had happened in that meeting to show Trump that the tactics he mastered in the business world cannot be used in diplomacy and war. His last victory was over Europe and Ukraine. Trump went behind the European alliance in hopes of achieving something through bilateral negotiations, leaving out the countries most affected by the war. This was an insult to the European alliance and NATO, and it shook the transatlantic bond between the European continents and the United States, weakening the alliance. Putin was able to spread an anti-Europe and anti-Ukraine narrative, blaming them for the continuation of this war on Western television and media, portraying them as uncompromising rather than himself, who refuses to hand over illegally annexed and occupied territories. So what happens now? Today, President Trump will meet with President Zelensky and likely debrief him on the meeting and discuss a potential deal. Several European leaders, such as Emmanuel Macron, Ursula von der Leyen, and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer, have also stated that they will join the meeting regarding President Zelensky, rather than via White House invitation. The White House claims all leaders were invited; however, it is hard to pinpoint if this information is factual. Trump will have to decide where he stands, as neither side is willing to back down. Russia is not forced to compromise by economic or diplomatic pressure, especially given Trump’s undermining of traditional diplomatic means. Presently, Zelensky is not willing to sacrifice any territory of his nation to an invading power, and rightfully so. Trump will either fall for Putin’s flattery and compliments and continue to back Russian terms, as he has already done stating earlier today regarding Ukraine’s non-adhesion to NATO, or he will return to the US’s more traditional position and ally himself with Europe. Only today’s meeting will tell. Sources: Associated Press. (2025, July 20). Kremlin says Putin open to peace with Ukraine only after Russia’s goals have been achieved. PBS News . https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/world/kremlin-says-putin-open-to-peace-with-ukraine-only-after-russias-goals-have-been-achieved Hutzler, A. (2025, August 15). How Trump has set expectations for meeting with Putin . ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/trump-set-expectations-meeting-putin/story?id=124621041 Adler, N., Osgood, B., & McCready, A. (2025, August 16). Trump-Putin summit updates: No Ukraine ceasefire after Alaska talks. Al Jazeera . https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/liveblog/2025/8/15/trump-putin-summit-live-leaders-to-meet-in-alaska-for-talks-on-ukraine-war Gozzi, L. (2025, August 16). Trump and Putin Alaska summit: Five takeaways from the meeting . BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4gj9er0x0zo.amp Marquardt, A., & Cohen, Z. (2025, May 1). Intelligence suggests Putin’s immediate goals for Ukraine war may have shifted. CNN . https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/05/01/politics/intelligence-putin-war-goals-shifted-ukraine Sky News. (2025, August 17). Vladimir Putin 'demands key regions of Ukraine in exchange for peace'   https://news.sky.com/story/vladimir-putin-demands-key-parts-of-ukraine-in-exchange-for-peace-13413322 Sauer, P. (2025, August 16). Russia jubilant after Trump summit as Putin reportedly demands Donetsk and Luhansk. The Guardian . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/aug/16/russia-jubilant-putin-alaska-summit-trump-ukraine Eagle, J. (2025, August 17). Europe’s diplomatic counterstrike . https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/europes-diplomatic-counterstrike-james-eagle-suxsf?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via Balforth, T. (2025, August 18) Outline emerges of Putin's offer to end his war in Ukraine https://www.reuters.com/world/china/outline-emerges-putins-offer-end-his-war-ukraine-2025-08-17/

Written By: Manuela Medeiros Whilst the world nods in agreement that the way to one’s heart is through their stomach, I argue that its path lies through language—through expression. It is not about fluency. It is about how language makes us feel, as if its sound carries a translation we didn’t even know we needed to hear, though it has existed since our first breath. There’s a theory that language shapes the way we think—that words don’t just describe our world; they create it. Over 7,000 languages currently exist, and over 600 are extinct. Yet, all share one common thread: they grant mankind the ability to communicate, to express, and to unravel life’s greatest mysteries: love and language. Ranging from a subtle “hello” to fist bop, language isn't limited to words—it is a glass slipper, one-size fits all. Let it be idiom, gestures or a facial expression; humans have been searching for ways to communicate without using dialect ever since social media exploded; thousands of emoticons and gifs—no translation, just a universal language that ties all of us together.  What your eyes can’t see, your ears can't hear, but your heart can feel–language proves itself to be more than a soulless system. One can't 'hear happiness’ or listen to ‘sorrow’, we simply feel it. Whether it is a slight curl of pink lips or deep brown eyes squinting with glimmer; emotion can never  truly be lost in translation. Take, for instance, a multinational couple. Two different languages, two different people, a thousand words and a million feelings—yet they communicate not just with words, but through shared moments and unspoken feelings. The depth of their connection cannot be fully translated into language; it transcends words, just as all human connection does. A soul isn't verbal, a soul is defined by the Oxford dictionary as a “strong and good human feeling, especially that gives a work of art its quality or enables somebody to recognize and enjoy that quality.”. Just as a piece of art can evoke emotion without a single word being spoken, the soul communicates with us in ways that go beyond language.  Furthermore, this essay argues that despite language solidifying communication, its essence transcends dialect; the cliché “lost in translation” is nothing more than a hyperbole— an excuse often created by mankind to avoid confronting life's wonders beyond its borders, missing the deeper emotions that bind us all. What makes us human, what makes someone American or Brazilian isn't the fact that they speak those languages, it is the fact that their soul, at its core, expresses itself with gusto and pride.  If humans existed long before the advent of language, why should it now define us as individuals?  Along with the emergence of homo sapiens, the first language was born: Sumerian, a language originated in southern mesopotamia during the 3rd millennium bce. Despite its recognition for being one of the first ever recorded languages, Sumerians were not the only urban civilizations to develop their own dialect. Egyptian, Proto-Sinaitic, Harappan and Chinese (Oracle Bone Script) were all languages that existed within a near time frame as Sumerian, dating back to 2500+ bce. Ostensibly, at that point, it is safe to argue that there wasn't anything as such “lost in translation”; language barriers were not thought of the same as they are in modern society. Going back to a bce time frame, primal communication was merely rudimentary, made for survival and not for communication. Fig 1. Sumerian carved into a rock with their Akkadian synonyms dating from c. 3300-3100 bce.  After written language allowed for even more complex ideas to be communicated. But, as one might imagine, with different languages and writing systems emerging around the world, misunderstandings would have arisen if people didn’t share the same system of communication. In ancient times, when citizens from different regions came into contact, whether through trade, war, or migration, there were language barriers. This would have led to issues such as misinterpretations, or even full-on breakdowns in communication,  essentially, a very real version of “lost in translation.” Before the development of full-fledged languages, early humans communicated using simple gestures and vocalizations; enough to express basic needs like “danger”, "food” or “help". This could be referred to as a “proto-language”, This was more than just survival grunts, it was the beginning of something deeper, the first whispers of what we now call language; where grunts and screeches most likely prevailed over actual speech or language and verbal communication was inherently featureless and unstructured.  As human societies grew larger and more complex, the sophistication of languages began to overrule animalistic gestures and sounds. Alongside the rise of phonemes, humans started combining words and developing a sense of grammar within the structure of their sentences. Not yet as complex as modern day dialects, these languages would now allow for communication outside of survival, allowing mankind to tell stories, give instructions or make plans.  Interestingly, even in ancient times, people often spoke multiple languages. Ancient Egyptians, for example, had diplomatic languages, such as Akkadian, which was used for interacting with people from other regions. Merchants, traders, and diplomats would have been bilingual or multilingual which facilitated communication across borders . Sometimes, interpreters would have been necessary for translating between different languages or dialects; examples seen in the ancient world when kings or rulers who spoke different languages sent messages or wrote decrees that needed to be translated. Regardless of middle men who would translate each and every word for you, it is vital to recognize that humans are widespread across the globe, prevailing in different regions and scattered across cities and countries; each adapting to their own proper dialect or entirely different languages. At that point, if two citizens from different regions tried to communicate, it is tangible that they might not understand each other fully, though they might rely on gestures, expressions or even body language to bridge the gap. In some ways, humanity has “universal” communication facilitated by gestures or simple signs; debunking the theory that human dialect was ever truly  lost in translation.  While our ancestors carved words into clay, the tools of communication evolved, slowly but surely, with each generation. In the 21st century, we have new virtual tools — like Google Translate and emojis— that continue to break down barriers and refine the way we connect with one another. Whilst it may be odd to remark to the existence of electronics when speaking about language and communication, the argument that electronics and its add-ons, ergo google translate, allow humans to demolish any linguistic barriers by facilitating international communication through the use of AI—a tool enabling the translation of over 4,000+ languages from text to speech. When dating back to a contemporary society, access to our modern gadgets was scarce, making the access to AI or Internet Browsers, which were nowhere near their creation, impossible. Consequently, when facing the question of getting ‘lost in translation’, establishing a time frame is of essence; whether it dates back to 3000+ years bce or 2023, getting lost in translation was far more often in a historical context due to the lack of tools we have today; tools that enable us to communicate with societal groups kilometers away from us—from China to the USA, we may not be lost in translation now but we once sure were.  Wittgenstein claims that “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” and proves that the only true limit of his world is ignorance. Wittgenstein’s belief is founded upon the idea that humans can and will communicate solely via language, which may be the case in Mars but not on Earth. This perspective, taken from the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, implies that human understanding is constrained by the language we possess. If a word doesn’t exist for a concept, can the concept ever be fully grasped? Neuroscience has shown multiple times how humans are wired to read micro-expressions and emotional cues subconsciously, conducting experiments with the limbic system in the brain that helps mankind interpret emotional signals without verbal input. Our brains are trained to read between the lines of language—detecting sorrow in a lowered gaze, or joy in a twinkle. Science tells us the heart sometimes understands before the ear ever hears. According to research in cognitive linguistics, the brain often interprets meaning in gesture, tone and facial expression even before processing spoken words. In one study by Mehrabian and Ferris, only 7% of emotional meaning face-to-face communication came from the words themselves: 38% through tone and 55% through body language. A few words, a quiet sound, and a mere stare. And that too, is language—just not one you can quote.  Adjacent to science, Wittgenstein evolved—and so did his beliefs: from rigid structures to flexible usages—further proof that the essence of meaning lies not in syntax, but in human context. This shift supports the theory that even if a word does not directly translate, meaning can still be preserved through human interaction, shared context, and cultural understanding.  And if so, if ancient homo sapiens could survive through the use of simple gestures and body language, why can't we?  When watching any classic cinematic masterpiece like “La La Land” or “Interstellar”, the first thing that catches the audience’s curious eye is not their dialogue; it’s their look, it’s their story. “Show not tell”—a renowned saying used by cinema enthusiasts to explain how real film is created. When Emma Stone’s glance becomes a universal language: joy, sadness, worry and fear—a look recognized worldwide regardless of the language  or the subtitles, that stare is understood by the entire globe.  Fig 2. Goslin’s Sebastian and Emma’s Mia final look in “La La Land”. A goodbye without bitterness and an emotionally raw eye contact between characters and a symbol of the reality of relationships. Whether it is Samba in New York or Frevo in New Delhi, language has a voice beyond movie screens—it speaks through dance. Without needing lyrics or translations, musical genres such as K-Pop have topped the charts globally every year, with 38% clearance in 2020; an achievement not even a dictionary could capture. Considering that the estimated time to reach fluency in Korean is around 2,200 class hours and its complex grammar and syntax places it in category IV of the linguistic spectrum: “very hard”, K-Pop stans all around the world remain enthusiastic enough to listen to it on repeat; “lost in translation” isn’t anything compared to their love for music.  From the The National Gallery in London to the Anahuacalli in Mexico, art is bound by nothing—and so is language. A Van Gogh painting does not beg to be understood in Dutch. Its strokes scream in color, speak in silence, and whisper techniques and emotions that no language can’t. One glimpse and a million emotions, Gogh’s loneliness and despair has a voice of its own—it doesn’t need complex grammar or a strong accent. Whilst some rely on words to express their feelings, Frida Khalo used herself. Fifty-five self portraits—“I paint myself because I am so often alone and because I am the subject I know best.” Khalo’s gaze was turned inward, her art imbued with a feminine voice of pain and perseverance. Her paintings wouldn’t speak in Spanish, they’d speak in elegance. Her audience didn’t have to understand her language, they only had to understand her .  Fig 3. Frida Khalo’s 1944 “The Broken Column” piece. Made after she underwent spinal surgery and symbolizes her physical and emotional pain. Language is not static. It evolves, morphs and shapes. The word “robot” comes from the Czech robota , meaning forced labor. “Emoji” comes from Japanese ‘絵文字’, meaning “picture character”. Both now carry meanings beyond their etymological origins—a process of translation where its meaning isn’t lost, only expanded—enriched.  Charlie Chaplin never needed a script to make us laugh—or cry. His eyebrows did the talking, his limp the narrative. In his silence, we heard everything.  It is impossible to deny that the cliché “lost in translation” evokes a sense of helplessness—a moment where meaning slips through the cracks between languages, paving the way for confusion and misinterpretation. When a mistranslated political speech causes diplomatic tension or a poorly localized film script may lose cultural significance; these examples aren’t just fiction, they’re real. Nikita Khrushchev’s 1956 “We will bury you” was a polysemy, in english it was a direct nuclear threat, in russian it was a message of hope and survival. Khrushchev was, quite literally, lost in translation. As if Khruschev’s double entendre wasn’t enough of a blow for our argument, the ironical misunderstanding of the 2003 film “Lost in Translation” brings us the concept of a satirized nuance and tone being butchered in translation; playing on the exact theory that sometimes translation prioritizes speed over depth.   On the other hand, the Japanese’s juxtaposing interpretation of “perfection” is the concept of “wabi-sabi”—a worldview centered around the beauty of imperfection and impermanence. Despite its universal use, English has no word that captures the melancholic essence of this japanese beauty. In Portuguese, “saudade” explains more than just its name; it feels the longing of one’s absent love. Nonetheless, while we can try to explain the meaning of these ideas, something will always get left behind. The emotion might be felt, but the cultural texture can always fade.  Now even in the absence of formal language, infants can point, cry, smile and mimic—demonstrating the universality and adaptability of human communication beyond language and establishing the clear distinction between linguistic competence and cognitive ability. Similar to Steven Pinker’s argument that language is an innate ability, but communication precedes language. And yet, even when words fail, humanity still tries to understand each other. We may not understand what “saudades” is, but we know what longing feels like. Our translation may be faulty, but our intentions remain untouched. This is where the reality of “lost in translation” becomes blurry.  Differing itself from many cases, translation will sometimes force us to dig deeper, to reinterpret rather than repeat. Translators are not just linguistic masterminds; they are artists. Think of Seamus Heaney translating Beowulf or Gregory Rabassa’s rendering of Gabriel Márquez. They didn’t just translate words, they translated worlds.  Lost in translation isn’t a myth or a reality; it’s both. When we expect a one-to-one equivalence between languages, it is real. When we accept that language isn’t about perfection or precision, it is a myth. If the purpose of language is ever but not to duplicate but to connect, nothing can ever truly be lost. As society opens itself to the fact that language isn’t a locket gate—it’s the key that opens it, we face its emotional and social implications. In 2023, 4.3 million non EU immigrants arriving at EU nation; immigration isn’t just a mere action, it’s change. Let it be a child of Turkish parents in Germany, they most likely speak Turkish at home but at school, German prevails—language becoming a bridge between generations, not a barrier.  You might not be able to say “I love you” in your partner’s native tongue but love can be shown in a borrowed phrase. From “Thank you” to “Obrigada”, love can never be translated.  As technology unfolds before our eyes, language becomes its global connector. Despite imperfect translations and internet dependent conversations—the technological intention to connect shows that a connection across borders can be established immediately. Let it be Duolingo with its 34+ million monolingual or soon to be bilingual, trilingual or quadrilingual users or Google Translate with 100+ languages being translated; there are no longer excuses not to learn, or at least try to.  Whilst technology advocates for a more scientifically defined approach on human communication, diplomacy calls for a geopolitical perspective. Having lived through multiple crises, political organs are proof that wars begin when communication fails. Ranging from United Nations interpreters who ensure that leaders can speak across language barriers to multilingual negotiations within peace treaties—in diplomacy, language is the tightrope between war and peace.  After all, is anything ever truly lost in translation, or do we simply fail to listen with the heart? Language is not a wall, it is a window. It is not a closed door, but a key to understanding. Aging from pre historical cave drawings to K-pop lyrics, from Chaplin’s silent films to Khalo’s loud grief, language will never belong to words alone. It lives in glances, gestures, colors and rhythm.  To give into saying “lost in translation” is to underestimate the resilience of human connection. What matters—the ache in a voice, the tenderness of a brushstroke, the joy in shared laughter—can never be confined by grammar or syntax. Language is not just spoken, it is felt. And when something is felt, it can never be lost.  In a world that often points out what separates us, the time has come for us to focus on what binds us. Not fluency or vocabulary but the universal desire to be understood—and the infinite ways we already are.  Works Cited:  Ethnologue. “How Many Languages Are There in the World?” Ethnologue , 2024, www.ethnologue.com/insights/how-many-languages/ .  Sichel, Barb. “Extinct Languages: When and Why They Die off | ILS.” ILS Translations , 12 Nov. 2019, www.ilstranslations.com/blog/understanding-extinct-languages-when-and-why-they-die-off/ .  “Soul Noun - Definition, Pictures, Pronunciation and Usage Notes | Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com .” Www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com , www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/soul .  Gelb, Ignace. “Sumerian Language | History, Characteristics, & Facts.” Encyclopædia Britannica , 2019, www.britannica.com/topic/Sumerian-language .  “Which Is the Oldest Language in the World? | Dynamic Language.” Dynamiclanguage.com , 2018, www.dynamiclanguage.com/which-is-the-oldest-language-in-the-world/ .  “Nimrud: Materialities of Assyrian Knowledge Production - the Sumerian Language.” Upenn.edu , 2019, oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thewritings/sumerian/index.html , http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/nimrud/ancientkalhu/thewritings/sumerian/ .  Phillips, Matt. “How Speech Began.” National Endowment for the Humanities , 28 Apr. 2021, www.neh.gov/article/how-speech-began .  “The Big Bookshelf of Phonology (Part II): Phonemes.” Mark Weakland Literacy , 2021, www.markweaklandliteracy.com/blog/the-big-bookshelf-of-phonology-part-ii-phonemes . Accessed 2 July 2025.  Fan, Angela. “Introducing the First AI Model That Translates 100 Languages without Relying on English.” About Facebook , 19 Oct. 2020, about.fb.com/news/2020/10/first-multilingual-machine-translation-model/ .  “Ludwig Wittgenstein Quotes (Author of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus).” Www.goodreads.com , www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/7672.Ludwig_Wittgenstein .  team, NeuroLaunch editorial. “Micro Expressions in Psychology: Decoding Hidden Emotions.” NeuroLaunch.com , 14 Sept. 2024, neurolaunch.com/micro-expressions-psychology/ .  “Mehrabian’s Communication Study.” Changingminds.org , changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/body_language/mehrabian.htm .  “La La Land : Explication de La Fin, Pourquoi Mia et Seb Ne Finissent Pas Ensemble ?” CinéSérie , 27 June 2023, www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/la-la-land-explication-de-la-fin-pourquoi-mia-et-seb-ne-finissent-pas-ensemble-5605572/ .  “Top 200 Biggest Hit Songs of 2020.” Albumoftheyear.org , 2020, www.albumoftheyear.org/user/pyddl/list/257240/top-200-biggest-hit-songs-of-2020/ . Accessed 6 July 2025.'  “A Quote by Frida Kahlo.” Goodreads.com , 2019, www.goodreads.com/quotes/60494-i-paint-myself-because-i-am-so-often-alone-and .  “Frida Kahlo: Her Iconic Life and Artwork in Mexico.” Sonyawinner.com , 2025, sonyawinner.com/blog/frida-kahlo-her-iconic-life-and-artwork-in-mexico/?srsltid=AfmBOoouczhQMtjcl8JQ3xkMLbOx4d7uBfg6RJqcUSmRv4ujHnHvyRzM . Accessed 6 July 2025.  Markel, Howard. “The Origin of the Word “Robot.”” Science Friday , 22 Apr. 2011, www.sciencefriday.com/segments/the-origin-of-the-word-robot/ .  Coto Academy. “Meaning of Japanese Kanji Characters in Emoji.” Coto Japanese Academy , 24 July 2019, cotoacademy.com/meaning-japanese-kanji-characters-emoji/ .  Mair, Victor. “Language Log» “We Will Bury You.”” Language Log , 4 Dec. 2023, languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=61527 .   The Literally Unsaid in Lost in Translation – Forms and Contexts of Literary Studies . 28 Oct. 2021, blogs.dickinson.edu/403lit/2021/10/28/the-literally-unsaid-in-lost-in-translation/ .  STAEDTLER. “Wabi Sabi: Significado, Filosofia, Mobiliário de Bricolage.” STAEDTLER , Apr. 2023, www.staedtler.com/br/pt/descobrir/o-que-e-o-wabi-sabi-tudo-sobre-significado-filosofia-e-os-respetivos-tutoriais/ . Accessed 6 July 2025.  Hartshorne, Joshua K., et al. “A Critical Period for Second Language Acquisition: Evidence from 2/3 Million English Speakers.” Cognition , vol. 177, no. 1, 2 May 2018, pp. 263–277, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027718300994 , https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.04.007 .  Eurostat. “EU Received 4.3 Million Immigrants in 2023.” @EU_Eurostat , Eurostat, 28 Mar. 2025, ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20250328-2 .  Duolingo. “Duolingo Hits 100M MAUs, Reports 59% DAU Growth and 41% Revenue Growth in Second Quarter 2024 | Duolingo, Inc.” Duolingo, Inc. , 7 Aug. 2024, investors.duolingo.com/news-releases/news-release-details/duolingo-hits-100m-maus-reports-59-dau-growth-and-41-revenue .

By: Manuela Medeiros When a scientist predicts an outcome based on a proven theory, and someone else claims a different outcome based on a strong feeling, who should we believe? In a world filled with opinions and gut instincts, what makes scientific reasoning more trustworthy than intuition? In a time defined by uncertainty–climate upheavals, pandemics, political instability–society faces a defying dilemma: whom shall we trust to predict our future? On one hand stands the scientist, grounded in theory, data and falsifiable methodology. On the other, the individual who claims to have powerful premonition–vivid, visceral and deeply felt. This question, deceptively simple, is the nucleus of epistemology: what constitutes knowledge, and why should some forms of it command more authority than others? Due to its epistemic foundations–systematic methodology, empirical scrutiny, and communal accountability, this essay argues that we ought to defer to the scientist not because science is infallible but because it is made uniquely suited to produce reliable predictions. Emerging from opaque psychological activity, premonitions are insulated from critical evaluation and juxtapose scientific foundations. To mistake the immediacy of intuition for the reliability of knowledge is to obstruct the distinction between feeling and knowing–a distinction on which society depends.   Drawing on the philosophical frameworks of Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Immanuel Kant, and contemporary epistemologists such as Alvin Goldman and Bas van Fraassen, this essay explores the contrast between empirical science and intuitive belief. Earning our deference not merely through success, but through the justificational structure of scientific prediction–this essay aims to address why premonitions remain alluring, and why resisting them is, paradoxically, a form of intellectual humility. The scientist’s prediction is not a guess, it is not intuition–it is a claim rooted in a theory. But what makes a theory “well-attested,” and why should it matter? An evidenced theory has survived repeated attempts at falsification. Famously argued by Karl Popper, the attempt to prove theories false and failing to do so rather than just “proving theories true”, is what makes science advance.  Falsifiability, for Popper, distinguishes science from pseudoscience. Standing for centuries not due to its invulnerability, but due to its consistent yielded accurate predictions–Newtonian mechanics revolutionized physics until better explanatory models, like Einstein's relativity, emerged.  When an event is predicted, scientists often do so within this framework: they take a theory that has withstood scrutiny and apply it to a case governed by logical inference. A transparent, repeatable, and accountable process; this is the antithesis of premonition, which is a personal and non-inferential process.  From a Bayesian lens, evidence should be updated proportionally to beliefs; scientific theories adjust in light of new data. When predicting storms using models that evolve as weather patterns change, meteorologists are ought to make a mistake and when they do–the models are simply recalibrated. By contrast, a premonition is impervious to revision; it simply is, and its truth or falsehood is only retrospectively revealed. On this basis, whilst premonitions are static and backward-confirmed, scientific predictions are dynamic and forward-facing. Over time, belief systems that evolve are more likely to align with truth and science, despite its missteps, converges towards accuracy. Premonitions, lacking mechanisms of refinement, do not. This difference matters.  Regardless, we are still prone to question the reliability of scientific predictions and if so, ask ourselves why do so many people continue to trust premonitions? The answer lies in the psychology of belief and the misidentification of certainty with clarity.    Premonitions feel so compelling because they are internally vivid. “Just knowing” is an experience where the intensity of emotion and sensory reign over knowledge. William James, writing on religious experience, noted the power of subjective certainty. On the other hand, this intensity tells us nothing about truth itself. As warned by David Hume, the correspondence to reality is not guaranteed by the strength of a belief. We may feel certain, and be entirely wrong.  Neuroscience confirms this. Even where none exist, the human-brain is an engine that recognizes patterns, evolved to detect threats. Intuition is guided by heuristics–mental shortcuts that are efficient but flawed. Take for example the slim probability of rare events starting to seem probable if they are emotionally salient–this trick is played by availability heuristic. A premonition of a plane crash may be nothing more than the echo of recent news–fueled by fear and anxiety.  The remembrance of premonitions is fluid–remembered when they succeed, forgotten when they fail. This fluidity created an illusion of accuracy. Take for instance someone who recently dreamt about an earthquake followed by a report that one occurred thousands of miles away–they may feel vindicated, ignoring the many dreams that went unfulfilled. This is commonly known confirmation bias–one of the most pervasive cognitive distortions.  In contrast, scientific predictions are carefully archived, compared to outcomes, and assessed with statistics. A failed prediction is not an inconvenience; it is data. In this way, science honors its own failure. Premonitions do not.  To defer to scientific prediction is to make a commitment not just to a claim, but to method. That method shall embody: transparency, accountability, and intersubjectivity. Defined as the “justified true belief”, Plato's classic definition of knowledge remains influential but also, insufficient. An illustration that justified true belief can occur by luck, The “Gettier problem” challenges the definition of knowledge as justified true belief (JTB). Argued as more than a robust foundation, the idea that knowledge comes from reliable cognitive processes, has been argued by contemporary epistemologists like Alvin Goldman, reinforcing the epistemic virtues of Science.  Scientific reasoning is such a process. Founded within double-blind studies, replication, statistical inference, and peer review–each mechanism is designed to simultaneously reduce bias and increase reliability. Even when it errs, science errs in public–and corrects its blunders. Intuition lacks these epistemic safeguards.  Not merely an individual activity but a communal one, Helen Longino and Philip Kitcher have argued that its credibility arises from critical interaction. When a theory is put to practice across laboratories and cultures, refined through disagreement, and scrutinised by rivals, it earns trust not from authority but from accountability.  Conversely, premonitions are solipsistic. They are not subject to communal critique nor can be tested. You can not test someone's dream. Even if it is accurate, it provides no clear pathway for the understanding of the future.  To prefer scientific prediction over premonition is not an epistemic judgment, it is an ethical one. It determines how we allocate trust, resources, and responsibility. Imagine an authorial warning of a pandemic, one based on epidemiological models; the other on a gut feeling. To whom should governments listen? To defer to premonition in such contexts is not only irrational–it is negligent.  The COVID-19 pandemic draws on this argument. Nations that trusted scientific modelling including but not limited to South Korea or New Zealand fared better than those who chose to waver between intuition and political convenience (Fig. 1). Predictions grounded in theory enabled preparation; vague feelings did not. Fig. 1. Graph illustrating the best and the worst prepared countries for a pandemic; New Zealand and South Korea being amongst the best prepared.  A healthy democracy relies on the public’s ability to evaluate claims and hold institutions accountable. Scientific predictions are a public dialogue–they can be interrogated and contested. Premonitions are private beliefs. To govern based on the latter is to merely abandon deliberation in favour of mysticism. Hence why scientific prediction should remain our default in law, medicine, economics, and policy. Not due to perfection, but due to its flexibility–because it is corrigible. Premonitions do not admit correction; they demand or to believe or to stay silent.  Still, some may challenge the privileges of science on various grounds. This essay considers three common objections: "But science has been wrong before". True—but so has every human endeavour. The fact that science isn't constant is a virtue, not a flaw. Science, illustrated by Thomas Kuhn's work on paradigm shifts, is portrayed to progress through revolutionary rethinking, each shift bringing us closer to explanatory adequacy. Newton might have been wrong, but usefully so. Premonitions, when wrong, teach us nothing. And in that way, science prevails.  Argued by some as a complement of science, intuition–by suggesting hypotheses, or alerting us to anomalies–may inspire inquiry, but it cannot justify belief or predict the future. As once posited by Einstein, “Imagination is more important than knowledge”, but imagination is the beginning, not the end, of understanding.  Certain indigenous or traditional knowledge systems are often dismissed as premonitions but are in fact grounded in long-term empirical observation. This criticism is valid. Not all non-scientific knowledge is irrational. Often exhibiting their own form of methodological rigour, these systems are a key example of science's justification and accountability, not whether it is Western or indigenous.  Believing is never neutral. Beliefs govern our acts, and how we act has consequences. Thus, our epistemic commitments carry an undeniable moral weight. To trust the prediction of a scientist over a premonition is not just a question of accuracy–it is a question of responsibility.  Introduced by Philosopher Miranda Fricker, the concept of epistemic injustice is illustrated by the harm done when someone is wrongfully discredited or trusted based on social bias rather than concrete evidence. In this context, testimonial injustice against the scientist is a consequence of choosing to elevate a premonition over a well-substantiated scientific model. Let it be by physical, social, and global contexts–harm is not only epistemic. Within the appalling narrative of climate change, public health, and technological risk, our survival heavily depends on our ability to distinguish beliefs that simply “feels right” from beliefs that has a reason to be trusted. Every event where a scientific warning is ignored in favour of a gut feeling, society is gambling with the truth and with lives.  The question, then, becomes not just “Who is likely to be correct?” but “Whose guidance are we justified, morally and rationally, in following?” The answer lies in systems that expose themselves to challenge, that allow for error and correction, and that put evidence before ego. Only science does this. At the core of this essay’s question lies a fundamental issue in epistemology: what counts as knowledge , and why are some forms of knowing privileged over others? To properly evaluate the difference between scientific prediction and intuitive premonition, we must first explore what philosophers have said about belief, justification, and the structures that underwrite reliable claims. Plato famously defined knowledge as justified true belief . According to this view, for someone to know something, the belief must be categorized (Fig. 2).  Fig. 2. A Venn Diagram illustrating the preliminary analysis of the JTB Theory Scientific predictions clearly dedicate oneself to this triad: they aim to describe reality accurately (truth), are asserted confidently (belief), and are supported by empirical and theoretical evidence (justification). Often painted as occasionally true beliefs, premonitions rarely meet the standards of justification and are compelled by no public evidence, no validation process, and no mechanism for distinguishing insight from error. Yet, Plato's formulation faced challenges. After publishing a brief paper in 1963 showing that a belief could be justified and true by accident, thus not qualifying as knowledge, Edmund Gettier revolutionized the thesis of the epistemic theory. Amidst the 20th century, philosophers like Alvin Goldman proposed “Reliabilism”: the idea that beliefs are justified if they arise from reliable cognitive processes.  This shift is crucial for our dilemma. Scientific methods—data analysis, controlled experiments, peer review—are reliable processes . They are designed to reduce error and increase the likelihood of truth. A premonition, by contrast, arises from processes (e.g., dreams, gut feelings) that are not reliable predictors of truth. Even when they are occasionally accurate, they are not systematically so—and thus, under “Reliabilism”, do not produce justified belief. This shift is crucial for our dilemma. Scientific methodology, data analysis, controlled experiments, peer review–are reliable processes. They are purposefully designed to reduce error margins and increase the likelihood of truth. A premonition, on the other hand, arises from processes (e.g., dreams, gut feelings, seers) that are not reliable predictors of truth. Considering they are rarely accurate, premonitions are not systematically designed for predictions–and thus, under “Reliabilism”, do not produce justified or reliable belief.  Emphasized by recent developments in epistemology, traits like intellectual humility, open-mindedness, and the willingness to revise beliefs in light of evidence are factors of “Epistemic virtue”. Scientific inquiry institutionalises these virtues. Conversely, premonitions are typically resistant to challenge; they beg for faith, not openness.  As a final, relevant insight illustrated by Immanuel Kant, in Critique of Pure Reason, a conceptual structure is argued as a requirement for knowledge, not just sensory input ( intuition in his terms).  This provides a framework for comprehending shaped by categories like casualty and time. Scientific theories also offer common frameworks. A premonition, despite being vivid, lacks the conceptual scaffolding to connect sense with rational belief. A premonition may be felt, but it cannot be known–it cannot be proven.  Not all beliefs stem from the same root. Some are fleeting impressions; others are birthed by years of inquiry. This distinction between a scientific prediction and a person's premonition is not one of sincerity, but of epistemic status– illustrated by a degree to which a belief is supported by reliable grounds and/or open to public scrutiny. Explored by a layered nature of belief using philosophical input from Aristotle, Mill, Peirce, and contemporary virtue–this essay argues that the belief of a scientist–though flawed–is epistemically superior to that of someone acting on intuition alone.  In Posterior Analytics , Aristotle distinguishes between doxa  (opinion), episteme  (scientific knowledge), and nous  (intellectual intuition). True knowledge (episteme), for Aristotle, must be demonstrable, it must come from well-rounded principles that are systemically derived. However, mere opinion can be persuasive without reliability.  Scientific predictions clearly longs to episteme: depending on explanatory chains, formal logic, and empirical justification. Premonition, even when painted as “intuitive knowledge", operates at the level of doxa–lacking demonstrability. While empowering some, it lacks room for replication, correction, and justification. John Stuart Mill posited against the dangers of “dead dogma”, the uncritical acceptance of truth based on tradition or emotion. Earned through rigorous method and deserving of qualified deference, Mill recognised that expertise should face alternatives and advocated for a liberal society where ideas are questioned–in which all views are equally valued.  Mill's foundation helps society understand the clear distinction between premonition and science. A scientific view can be challenged, but it is grounded in a structure that welcomes such scrutiny. The intuitive prediction, paradoxically, resists critique–either it is believed or not. Premonition behaves on a “dogma” basis.  Hypothesized by the American pragmatist Charles Peirce, fixing belief is contrasted in four ways: tenacity (believing what feels right), authority (believing what institutions say), a priori reasoning (believing what seems logical), and science (belief based on the method of experience, testing, and correction). Peirce argued that only scientific methods could resolve doubt in a stable and progressive context.  Premonition aligns most closely with Peirce's "method of tenacity", holding to belief regardless of evidence. It may be comforting, but it refuses to create communal knowledge. A scientist, even when wrong, participates in the only method that gives belief justification over time. Thus, society should not question which prediction feels more convincing but which belongs to a self-correcting and publicably answerable process.  Epistemologists of contemporary virtue like Linda Zagzebski and Jason Baehr posit that belief's reliability is dependent not solely on methods, but on the intellectual background of the believer. Traits like curiosity, flexibility, intellectual humility, and courage are epistemic virtues that increase the odds of feasible belief. Scientific practice embodies these virtues. With courage to be proven wrong, science demands doubt, openness to falsification and public input. Premonitions, by its own nature, resist this vulnerability that makes science change over time. Insulated from doubt and hostility towards disconfirmation–even on the level of intellectual character, the scientist's prediction is ethically and epistemically preferable.  While philosophy traditionally asks what we know and how, another equally important question is: how does belief shape the way we experience the world?  Phenomenologists Edmund Husserl and Martin Heidegger rejected the idea that knowledge is a detached, analytical process. Instead, they focused on how humans experience the world from a first-person perspective. For Heidegger, we are not observers of the world—we are thrown into it, navigating meaning through tools, signs, and moods. A premonition, like a dream, vision, or “gut feeling”, may carry immense existential weight for the person experiencing it. It feels embedded in their world, by force, part of their mood, history, and hopes. To dismiss it outright as irrational is to ignore how deeply people’s inner experiences shape their sense of reality. Nevertheless, phenomenology requires intentionality—the mind's focus on significant objects. Scientific reasoning, while not as emotionally charged, attains a form of phenomenological clarity: it connects the individual to a wider intersubjective reality where meaning is communicated, examined, and polished through conversation. That is where its knowledge-based benefit exists.  Humans are storytellers. We construct meaning through narrative, not through numbers.  Premonitions persist not because they are accurate, but because they are compelling. They allow individuals to feel connected to something larger—fate, destiny, mystery. In this way, they function existentially rather than epistemically. Scientific forecasts, on the other hand, frequently miss this storytelling appeal. They are arid, statistical, detached. But that doesn't render them weaker—it makes them more disciplined. They are freed from the misconceptions that give premonitions a sense of strength. They resist the entirely human urge to assign meaning when there is none.  In this sense, the scientist’s belief may be emotionally thinner, but it is intellectually sturdier. It opens the door to shared knowledge, not just private meaning. It admits its own fallibility and invites correction, which is the highest expression of epistemic humility. To defer to scientific prediction is to defer not to authority, but to methods that are refined through centuries of intellectual discourse and collective evaluation. It is to choose clarity over opacity and shared accountability over isolated conviction. This is not a denial of intuition’s value. Intuition can be creative, personal, even revelatory. However, revelation does not equate to justification. Premonitions may inspire the spirit—but they cannot direct the vessel. In a world on the brink of ecological, technological, and political crises, our survival hinges on placing trust not where the voice is the loudest or the emotions are most intense, but where the logic is most robust.  Intuition can be compelling, imaginative, individualized, and even enlightening. However, revelation does not provide justification. Premonitions can awaken the spirit, yet they cannot guide the vessel. In a world balanced on the brink of existence, society relies on establishing trust not in the strongest feelings, but in the most logical reasoning.  Mistaking what feels correct for what is actually correct is a perilous cognitive trick. In the midst of life's unpredictability, we must resist the allure of instinct and instead seek those systems—no matter how flawed—that are willing to be mistaken, to be challenged, and to be improved.  Respect for science, therefore, is not unconditional belief. It is a matter of ethical and intellectual duty: the bravery to rely on what inspires trust, and the insight to recognize the distinction. Works cited:  Goode, Terry M, and John R Wettersten. “How Do We Learn from Argument? Toward an Account of the Logic of Problems.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy , vol. 12, no. 4, 1982, pp. 673–689. JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/40231287 , https://doi.org/10.2307/40231287 . Talbott, William. “Bayesian Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/ .  Shermer, Michael. The Believing Brain . Times Books, 2011.  “Definition of Premonition | Dictionary.com .” Www.dictionary.com , www.dictionary.com/browse/premonition .  James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience a Study in Human Nature Página 1 de 400 the Varieties of Religious Experience : A Study in Human Nature / William James . 2009.  David, Marian. “The Correspondence Theory of Truth.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 10 May 2002, plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ .   Gettier Problems | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy . iep.utm.edu/gettier/#H5 .  Sosa, Ernest. “Goldman’s Reliabilism and Virtue Epistemology.” Philosophical Topics , vol. 29, no. 1/2, 2001, pp. 383–400. JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/43154371 , https://doi.org/10.2307/43154371 .  ---. “Infographic: The Countries Best and Worst Prepared for an Epidemic.” Statista Infographics , 9 Dec. 2021, www.statista.com/chart/20629/ability-to-respond-to-an-epidemic-or-pandemic/ .  James, William. The Varieties of Religious Experience . Harvard University Press, 1985 (originally 1902).  Sinclair, Rob. “Epistemic Injustice | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Utm.edu , 2016, iep.utm.edu/epistemic-injustice/ .  Plato. Theaetetus . Trans. M.J. Levett. Hackett, 1992.  “A Preliminary Analysis of the JTB Analysis and the Gettier Problem.” LUO Xingyu’s Blog , 11 Feb. 2018, luoxingyu.wordpress.com/2018/02/11/a-preliminary-analysis-of-the-jtb-analysis-and-the-gettier-problem/ . Accessed 19 July 2025.  Plato. Theaetetus . Trans. M.J. Levett. Hackett, 1992.  Gettier, Edmund L. “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” Analysis , vol. 23, no. 6, 1 June 1963, pp. 121–123.  Sosa, Ernest. “Goldman’s Reliabilism and Virtue Epistemology.” Philosophical Topics , vol. 29, no. 1/2, 2001, pp. 383–400. JSTOR , www.jstor.org/stable/43154371 , https://doi.org/10.2307/43154371 .  Goldman, Alvin, and Bob Beddor. “Reliabilist Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/ .  Goldman, Alvin, and Bob Beddor. “Reliabilist Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2016, plato.stanford.edu/entries/reliabilism/ .  Turri, Mark, John, Alfano, and John Greco. “Virtue Epistemology.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2019, plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-virtue/ .  Maximilian, Holzek. “A Summary of “the Critique of Pure Reason”- Immanuel Kant.” Medium , 23 July 2023, medium.com/@gryzbeck.maximilian/a-summary-of-the-critique-of-pure-reason-immanuel-kant-d030aebb3b8b .  Lizka. “Epistemic Status: An Explainer and Some Thoughts.” Effectivealtruism.org , 31 Aug. 2022, forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/bbtvDJtb6YwwWtJm7/epistemic-status-an-explainer-and-some-thoughts . Accessed 19 July 2025.  “The Internet Classics Archive | Posterior Analytics by Aristotle.” Classics.mit.edu , classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html .   Aristotle. Posterior Analytics . Translated by Jonathan Barnes, Oxford University Press, 1994.  “The Internet Classics Archive | Posterior Analytics by Aristotle.” Classics.mit.edu , classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html .  Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty . Penguin Classics, 1985.  Peirce, Charles S. “The Fixation of Belief.” Popular Science Monthly , vol. 12, 1877, pp. 1–10.  Zagzebski, Linda. Virtues of the Mind: An Inquiry into the Nature of Virtue and the Ethical Foundations of Knowledge . Cambridge University Press, 1996.  Baehr, Jason. The Inquiring Mind: On Intellectual Virtues and Virtue Epistemology . Oxford University Press, 2011.  Descartes, René. Meditations on First Philosophy . Trans. John Cottingham. Cambridge University Press, 1996.  Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time . Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, Harper & Row, 1962.  Thorburn, Malcolm, and Steven A. Stolz. “Intersubjectivity, Embodiment and Enquiry: A Merleau-Ponty and Husserlian Informed Perspective for Contemporary Educational Contexts.” Educational Philosophy and Theory , Apr. 2025, pp. 1–11, https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2025.2486675 .

Written by: Sean Parsons Can a teenager control, in a substantial way, the global sea levels? How about deforestation in the Amazon? Your average teenager is somewhat handicapped when it comes to dealing with issues that are happening across the world from them. However, the youth are scared due to social media’s misleading nature and over-exaggerated, attention-grabbing headlines. According to a survey of young people done by  The Lancelet , 84% of respondents were at least moderately worried about climate change, with 59% being “very or extremely worried. 75% said that the future is frightening, and 83% said that they think people have failed to take care of the environment.  In a way, their fears are valid.  The current state of the climate is  scary.  Things seem to be going worse than ever, and there is no shortage of ecological horror stories in the mainstream media, so the fear of the average teenager is understandable.  In the  article  “Mediatization and the Disproportionate Attention to Negative News”, Toni G.L.A. van der Meer focuses on the case of plane crashes, but the conclusion applies here. Simply put, airplane crashes are very few and far between. Their rarity increases their importance, so when one  does  happen, it is heavily reported upon. No news outlet will report on a successful flight because of its frequency. This can lead to the public thinking airplane crashes happen often, which is far from true.  The same can be said for climate change stories. Bad news gets more attention, so it gets reported on more, while good news is underreported because it doesn’t get the same amount of clicks. This is an issue, so we, as the public, must do our own research. Every headline you read, you must trust, but verify. Check sources, listen to both sides on an issue, and don’t believe any sensational headlines you see on social media, and don’t fall for stories that appeal too heavily or exclusively to emotions to make you feel guilty.  The truth is, a politician’s private jet contributes far more to carbon emissions than a car does. In fact, a cruise ship’s carbon footprint surpasses that of 12,000 cars. There are huge industries that produce more waste and carbon in a day than a teenager produces in a year. Such things cannot be immediately changed by a teenager; it just isn’t within their control. Now, this isn’t to say that teenagers should just throw their hands up in surrender to the ever-present concerns of our environment; there is still a lot we can do. Youth activism has been a huge part of American and global history, and we have already seen its effects today, such as Greta Thunberg’s rise to prominence, which showed youth all over the world that they  can  make a difference and get their voices heard. Teenagers can start small, organize conservation clubs at school, go to city council meetings to propose ideas, and try to give input in decisions made by their family, such as using solar power or family compost. Social media is often the source of climate anxiety, but it can also be used to fight it. Teenagers should, as mentioned before, maintain a balanced social media feed so they are aware of ever-present issues, but also don’t feel overwhelmed and understand the good things happening for the environment. They can also create social media accounts to share good news with others who may be struggling with climate anxiety or to post their own nature-related content. Teenagers can also get involved in their local governments, fighting for change in their own communities, or spearhead projects that require professional assistance. Remember, progress can range from simple, small-scale tasks, such as recycling or educating a friend, to large-scale projects that make a big difference. Either way, anything helps, and even the biggest projects must start small. In addition, positive things are happening for the climate every single day, you just might not hear about them as much. For example, on 5/15/25, France moved forward on a ban on forever chemicals, harmful synthetic chemicals that do not break down easily. On May 6th, Malaysia passed a law that requires full community consent for development. If you are struggling with climate anxiety, websites such as  Happy Eco News  can provide a different, more positive perspective to brighten your outlook. So I leave you with this: control what you can and get involved. Minimize your plastic use, recycle your trash, and ride your bike when you can, but keep your focus on how climate change is directly affecting you instead of getting overwhelmed by things you cannot control.

By: Manuela Medeiros Born in a dying world, raised in Kansas, Clark Kent is the ultimate refugee. Not all heroes need a cape, and not all villains need a gun–President Donald Trump does it all with immigration policies.    After soaring a whopping $125 million at the box office, Superman is taking a pit stop at the White House to spit on the faces of today's presidency! From Krypton to Washington, villains aren't bound by comics–they are bound by policy. Superman's story stems from a chaotic planet, and a desperate father sends his son away to save him from destruction. A familiar story, don't you think? Well, funny enough, this origin labels Superman not only as a hero, but as a refugee–an outsider seeking not just safety but belonging. Yet, if Clark were to arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border in the present-day America, would he be greeted with hope or fear? In an era defined by strict immigration policies and aggressive enforcement by agencies such as ICE, Superman's survival would easily be at risk.  Fig 1. Superman in Gunn's “Superman” 2025 film.  Bearing an identity shaped by commitment, justice, and protection, Clark Kent symbolizes the immigrant experience of loss, adaptation, and the pursuit of a new home. Comics and films have long celebrated this narrative, now, when will we?  Painted as refugees and asylum seekers rather than humans in need, the U.S. immigration policy, at the hands of Trump's administration, focuses on border security and immigration enforcement. By expanding ICE's search, the U.S. led an overwhelming increase in detentions and family separations (Fig. 1) with cruel policies such as the “Remain in Mexico” and Title 42 expulsions. Despite international laws protecting asylum seekers, nearly 80% of those attempting to enter are expelled under these policies, invoked during the COVID-19 pandemic and still controversially used. ICE manages over 200 detention facilities nationwide, with approximately 20,000 immigrants incarcerated, many without access to any  legal representation. These separations, though officially curtailed, continue to disrupt the lives of thousands of families. These figures starkly juxtapose Superman’s narrative as a refugee who finds sanctuary and acceptance, exposing the systemic barriers and ironies faced by real-life scenarios today. Fig 2. Graph illustrating immigration detention by each arresting agency over time.  What an ironic  situation, no? A man distinguished by his extraordinary abilities, which define him as a hero, is criminalized today. Depicted as a “foreigner”, Superman's status with unknown origins could land him in detention-rather than being celebrated. This underscores how policies often prioritize suspicion over humanity. Not all dangers come with weapons; sometimes, the greatest obstacles lie within the system, rooted in fear, bureaucracy, and MAGA movements.  Superman’s story summons a broader reflection on America’s self-image and values. A hero that stands for “truth, justice, and the American way”, ideals that should reflect on how the nation treats immigrants and refugees. Yet, the current American political framework reveals a strain between rhetoric and reality. Who qualifies as deserving? Who is seen as a threat? The criminalization of immigrants challenges the idea of America as a land of opportunity and sanctuary—a place where even an alien child could become a hero. A walking embodiment not of the American dream but of what it  once was, Superman's is a narrative of truth, justice, and the “American way", ideals that should extend to how the nation treats immigrants and refugees. Yet, with the current political framework, a tension between rhetoric and reality is revealed. Who qualifies as deserving? Who is seen as a threat? What was known as the land of opportunity and sanctuary, our world's “melting pot” and a place where even an alien child can become a hero, is now a minefield where the existence of Aliens is more plausible than just immigration policies.  “Being a hero isn’t about where you’re from—it’s about standing up when the world tries to push you down. No matter your origin, justice is universal.” While America's sweetheart claims that justice is for all, this was a different story for the 22-year-old Palestinian detainee Muhanad Alshrouf. Since July 5, 2025, Muhanad has been detained at the George Bush Intercontinental airport regardless of his valid immigrant visa and is undergoing background checks from U.S. and Israeli authorities. Without a single explanation, legal representation, or adequate access to family, Muhanad has been held in a secondary screening room for over a week. The metal detector beeping is no longer a matter of probability; it is a matter of xenophobia.  “When I turned myself in at the border, I told them I was pregnant. The people at immigration claimed that everything I told them was a lie. I told them about my brother being killed, and I was afraid for my life because I was being threatened. They started laughing at me and said that everyone comes to them with the same story. They put handcuffs on me and a chain around my belly. I thought, I’ve made a big mistake. There are a lot of people in detention who, instead of helping you, they tell you things that make you more scared. They would tell me that I wouldn’t get out until I had my baby in there. I was in detention for one month and one week. I was fortunate, but if I had known how they treated pregnant women in detention, I don’t think I would have come. It was terrible.”  Two years detained and a million stories; let her voice reverberate through history as an alarm and awaken those who still believe in change.  “The symbol of the S is hope.” - Superman.  Works Cited  “Immigration Detention Quick Facts.” Tracreports.org , 2025, tracreports.org/immigration/quickfacts/ . Rubin, Rebecca. “Superman Opening Weekend: James Gunn Reboot Opens to $124 Million.” Variety , 13 July 2025, variety.com/2025/film/box-office/superman-box-office-opening-weekend-1236459080/ . Accessed 14 July 2025. Aguilar, Julián. “Palestinian Man Detained at Houston Airport for over a Week.” Houston Chronicle , 14 July 2025, www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/immigration/article/palestinian-houston-airport-detention-20769497.php?utm_source=chatgpt.com . Accessed 14 July 2025. Superman . Directed by James Gunn, 11 July 2025. Bush-Joseph, Kathleen. “Title 42 Postmortem: U.S. Pandemic-Era Expulsions Policy Did Not Shut down the Border.” Migrationpolicy.org , 23 Apr. 2024, www.migrationpolicy.org/article/title-42-autopsy ? Castañeda, Ernesto. “Despite the End of Title 42, Restrictions on Asylum Seekers Are Expected to Continue under Biden Administration.” The Conversation , 11 May 2023, theconversation.com/despite-the-end-of-title-42-restrictions-on-asylum-seekers-are-expected-to-continue-under-biden-administration-205343?Accessed 14 July 2025. Olivares, José. “Biden Extended Contracts to Private Immigration Jails despite Reports of “Horrific” Conditions.” The Guardian , The Guardian, 6 Dec. 2024, www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/06/biden-immigration-detention-centers-inhumane-conditions ? Seven Doors. “SEVEN DOORS.” SEVEN DOORS , 2017, www.7doors.org/usa-pt2 ? Accessed 14 July 2025.