Say we have two people arguing- Sally and Bob. Both Sally and Bob believe something to be true and the inverse of that to be false.
The argument stems from the fact that what Sally believes true, Bob believes false, etc.

Now, Sally intuitively knows that what she believes true, is in fact true. But, she knows that Bob feels the same way, just in reverse.
Because intuition has such a huge impact in our ideas, is there really any way Sally or Bob can convince the other assuming there is no earth shattering evidence to support one or the other?

Whatever small pieces of evidence Sally brings to validate her argument will be seen as inferior to Bob, if he truely believes he is right. The only way Sally can convince Bob that she is right is if she convinces Bob that her evidence is superior. For Bob to even acknowlege Sally's evidence, he must loosen his conviction that he is right.

So, for any evidence in an argument to actually be of worth, the arguers must except the possibility that they could be wrong.

Now, many people say they are open to new ideas, that if they are shown evidence, then they will change their views. But, at some point we hit a wall where we must believe solely on intuition, with a total disregard for worldly evidence. At that point, we can only be right, for if we weren't right, we wouldn't be.

Am I right? :m:

Yes.

I find this extremely true when it comes to people's religious and political views

I agree when It comes to religous fanatics because religion is very narrow sighted, and often unreasonable.

But, at some point we hit a wall where we must believe solely on intuition, with a total disregard for worldly evidence. At that point, we can only be right, for if we weren't right, we wouldn't be.

I agree with this. The thing is though that each person has their own "wall", and these "walls" aren't easily recognizable, nor can we really "compare" the "wall" of one person to that of another.

Total relativism is impossible. Total relativism would include doubting the very existence of the relativist -- yet so many people who preach relativism behave as fanatic absolutists.

What I find tend to works in these cases is if possible, to shift the arguement into the abstract, pose it as a hypothetical case of two opposing views to a third party.