compelling evidence exists?" I get the feeling that people harping on this "envision" thing actually understand that what this person means is simply "Are you willing to be proven wrong if some compelling evidence exists?" but despite that they are so abstractly offended by the rigidity and haughtiness of the rules -- and maybe the fact that they approach "rational discussion" a different way -- that they are just trying to find some simple/ irrelevant point to contest it (semantics in this case) and/ore are deliberately misinterpreting it to make it appear as if the entire idea behind this argument is objectively wrong, "impossible," or "bad." I can envision something changing my mind on these points. If for example it was shown that a number of people genuinely interpreted "envision" as "knowing exactly which facts or arguments would prove my argument wrong" I would most likely think that I had misjudged what I thought was "obvious" and probably believe that the creator of the flowchart should not have used the word "envision" and that an argument about semantics was an important and fruitful one to have in this case. Autolycus I think the problem is that it is a test of falsification. This limits 'rational discussion' to Popperian sciences. Autolycus I think that the argument goes beyond mere semantics; it is really about whether we are to be falsificationists a la Popper or verificationists. The flowchart, however, starts by essentially asking, "Can you think of a way to falsify your