 All right. So I ask you again, Clifford has said that if you are your title to your belief, only if you have sufficient evidence, sufficient evidence is that the belief conforms to uniformity nature and the common human experience. If you do not have sufficient evidence, you must suspend judgment. Does the second part of this claim about suspending judgment, does that have sufficient evidence? Clifford says for it to have sufficient evidence has to be part of the common human experience, but it is not part of the common human experience that you suspend judgment. In fact, most people in the face of disagreement hold on to the beliefs even more tightly. So the second part of Clifford's claim that you must withhold belief in a face of disagreement. If it doesn't conform to the common human experience, you must withhold judgment. The second part of this belief don't have sufficient evidence for it. Oh boy, that's a big problem for Clifford's view. If that's not part of the common human experience, then the force of Clifford's conclusion is pretty much lost. He says you're not entitled to beliefs for which you don't have sufficient evidence. If you don't have the submission, you have to withhold judgment, but we don't do it under his own account. Under his own account of what counts as sufficient evidence, he doesn't have sufficient evidence for this conclusion. That's a big deal. Clifford's own account disagrees with itself.