I totally agree with you about how much easier the Clifford readings are. I see his arguments though, because he covered so many different areas, like the example where the small group of men were condemned and they were wrongfully accused, also the fact that people no matter what they support are automatically biased in that support because why would they want to prove themselves wrong. I think he presents that there are certain aspects of human nature that hold us back from seeing the "sufficient" evidence, and that's what makes it difficult and subjective.

I agree with you on this topic because he went very detailed in explaining his points about truth and knowledge but left that statement very broad.