The only lie that's being told here is yours. You're just making up stuff as a pretext to inserting your links and boasting about your Ph.D.

Do you know what philology is? Do you know what the difference between the mind and the brain is? Do you know how silly it looks for a grown man to be riding childishly on a hobbyhorse?

What's the "fallacy" in interpreting the original meaning of a word like "understand"? How is that "lying"? Your comment is more mischievous than my article, so it's the pot calling the kettle black, I'm afraid.

If you'd like a healthy dialogue, cut out the condescension and say something relevant and enlightening.

I agree, though, that reason isn't sufficient for understanding since reason doesn't dictate which fundamental premises are true. What I said, though, is that reason "increases" our understanding, as in expanding our knowledge, clarifying our concepts, or testing our assumptions. And I was speaking of "reason" very broadly to include even trial and error.