In this case they are basing the assertion on very solid empirical evidence. Therefore it's reasonable to call the prediction "true beyond a reasonable doubt." It also must be taken in context, but we all share the same context so that is no problem. Obviously a plane could crash into any one of our houses tonight, so we would not get out of bed in the morning. If that happens, nobody is going to say, "Aha, you were lying!" It's unreasonable to expect a plane to crash through your roof since that only happens to one person in the entire country a few times per century, so the odds of it happening to any one individual on any given night are about one in half a trillion. No. It's Jungian psychology. For a rendering of much of Carl Jung's work into laymen's language, check out Joseph Campbell. The definition of an archetype is a motif--image, fear, ceremony, legend, etc., that occurs in nearly every human society in nearly every era. Since many archetypes clearly are survival traits, it's a reasonable hypothesis that the mechanism of their passage from one generation to the next is the DNA that directs the shaping of our synapses. The archetypes are remarkably consistent. This makes it less likely that they have been passed down through dozens or hundreds of generations by oral tradition--the "telephone game." All mammals and birds teach their young how to survive and prosper in the world. It's part of the parenting instinct. Humans have a unique area in our brains, the speech center, and we also have far more flexibility in our speech organs (tongue, lips, etc.) than most other mammals and birds, giving the speech center something to control. It's hard to diagram the brains of our ancestral species since soft tissue almost never fossilizes. But based on skull shape, zoologists have recently reached the conclusion that the Neanderthal brain also had a speech center. We'll probably never know about any of the ancestral hominids. Did speech develop because the speech center and vocal organs made it so easy? Or did early hominids struggle to speak and the brain center showed up as a random mutation which quickly selected the people who had it for a greater chance of survival? Given that "equal" and "wrong" are both value judgments, the assertions are more philosophical than zoological anyway. So what's wrong with "hunch" and "gut feeling"? We all know what those words mean and we already use them--at least in American English. Con men, psychologists, cops and diplomats are famous for being able to read what are called "tells." These include, for example, amount of eye contact and direction of crossing arms or legs. Con men and diplomats are also able to control their own responses and "lie" with their bodies. Psychologists often test these types of phenomena, and they don't always turn out to be as reliable as we give them credit for. That may be enough to satisfy you about "truth" as you make your way through daily life. But one of the key steps in the scientific method is peer review. Another person has to be able to repeat your experiment and get the same results. If you can't even explain why you feel a certain way, no one will be able to peer-review it. Again, we've been given a number of perfectly useful words already. Why can't you call it a hunch or a gut feeling like so many other people do? You haven't investigated the probability phenomenon sufficiently. Statistically, due to nothing more than random combinations of events, some people are going to be much luckier than others. If you toss a coin fifty times and it always comes up heads, this provides exactly zero evidence to predict the result of the next toss. So the same is true if you've always guessed right about decisions in your life. You were lucky many times in a row. This provides exactly zero evidence upon which to predict that you will be lucky the next time. The reason is that people are strongly swayed by coincidence. It is one of the most powerful forces in our lives. Stories of amazing strings of luck are well-known because they are so interesting, and also because they are so rare. Nobody ever tells or hears the story about the guy who won a hundred thousand dollars on ten spins of the roulette wheel, but then lost it all on the eleventh spin. I repeat, what's wrong with the words other people use? People like to appear certain to their friends and family. They think it makes them look smart and powerful. They'd rather say "I know my kid did it," than "I have a hunch my kid did it." But it's exactly the same hunch. That's a common enough turn of phrase. Most of us would probably assume that the person who says "believe" has a little more evidence than the person who says "hunch" or "gut feeling."