stand?" and is thus susceptible to the same arguments that persuaded Popper to adjust the strict falsification rule he initially imposed. In your case, you would 'envision' or describe your falsification method by assigning properties (e.g. different, more lucid). But each time you add another property, you would be modifying your initial stand. The only way to successfully 'envision anything that will change your mind on this topic' is to state what it is, completely (no omissions, no amendments). This works for simple things. Example: are all roses pink? Envision: a rose of any colour not pink. Only two properties are relevant: rose/not-rose and pink/not-pink. But alternative/more lucid is subject to your interpretation. What is more lucid to you is not necessarily more lucid objectively. This is likely true of attempting to envision or describe the mind-changing thing in a complex topic. It would bog down in nuance. My conclusion is that the flowchart is indeed useful in many situations, but not all. I would prefer 'how to have a civilised discussion', with behavioral criteria such as 'will avoid using language any party claims is insulting'. I note that 'this is how rational human beings exchange ideas' is itself debatable, as is the concept of exchanging ideas, rigorously considered. Brandon scott gorrell I see what you are saying regarding alternative/ more lucid. I'm a bit lost regarding Popper and the rose analogy, but that's OK. I feel like I can't say anymore because I'm sort of confused but I think