that there is a large gap missing from their explanation of whatever phenomena, but they continue to ignore that and insist, regardless of whatever you might say, that their belief makes sense? How could you continue that discussion? What discussion is there to be had in that situation? That situation is like a parent trying to reason with a child that wants a toy way too expensive for the parent to afford. The parent can tell the child that she doesn't have enough money for the toy right now but the child will continue to continue to demand it because it is at this stage in its life much more emotional than reasonable. The parent can do nothing in this situation to quell the child's belief that it needs that toy and so the child will cry and become upset for a couple hours, until it forgets about it. This is what talking to a person that is unflinching in their belief about something is like. You can not speak with them rationally. This is why the first box on this graph exists. Autolycus Can you envision anything that will persuade you to change your mind on what you think about what Gene said? a) If not, how can your answer be part of a reasonable discussion? b) If yes, what would it be? Can you envision it? Brandon scott gorrell Yes, it would be some alternative/ more lucid interpretation of his original comment I would assert that it's not