show me that an argument or supporting fact I am relying on is false or wrong, I will rethink it, and fix the problem, but I think it would be a mistake to drop it, and try to completely disavow it. For example, if I am a Roman Catholic, and it is shown to me that Roman Catholicism is wrong, this does not mean I should instantly assume that there is no God. There are still many Christian denominations, and if the bible were a complete fabrication, there are all the non-Christian churches. Then, once someone shows me convincingly (assuming they did) that there really was nothing like a God, that doesn't imply that I shouldn't live any of the ten commandments. Showing me an argument is wrong means the argument needs to be reexamined, and the middle of a discussion is not the right place to do that. Lookoverhere1 Popper didn't think that only statements that could be falsified were rational. He thought that only statements that could be falsified were scientific. That is a big difference. 45Slade I enjoy a discussion, even a heated one, with someone with whom I share a desire to arrive at some truth that we agree on. I don't enjoy a discussion with someone who regards the activity as a competition to prove themselves right at any cost. I can tell the difference by their response to facts or ideas that appear to contradict their position. While this flow chart is interesting, it