well one day I can explain to you. But as I have said it’s interesting to have a discussion, if that’s what you want to call it, on a topic that is part of one’s daily work life, talk about research and find the other person off on some tangent, suggesting that study many years ago but no practical experience is sufficient to dismiss or debate the other and to then suggest that they agree to disagree. That sounds more like your description of an argument. It also beats me why one might agree to disagree in such circumstances. One might however agree that there is little point to n pursuing a pointless discussion or debate or argument if the facts aren’t listened to and alternative research based facts can’t be produced.
sometimes there are facts and sometimes there are opinions. Where there are opinions disagreement is perfectly possible and thus reasonable but with facts - mmmm With interpretation of facts that’s another matter again.
It would be rather like me trying to suggest I knew something about knots because I went to girl guides, or something about prawns because I eat them. I wouldn’t even bother trying to sustain Such a position let alone even contemplate raising an alternative viewpoint if faced with someone who clearly, from their experience, knew something about the topic.
but never mind. It is of no consequence. I’m pretty sure I’m aware of when I know something well, imperfectly or not at all and pretty sure I know when I’m sort of on a roll and enjoying the sparring or just feel affronted.
