I don't know it, because I consider it quite possible to have a theoretical understanding of something that belies the practical: e.g. I know that stage illusionists are not performing magic, even if I can't work out how they are doing the illusions they do. Not so - your objections are, to me, "mere objection and emotion" because that is all you put forward. It simply isn't about your philosophy because when I call you/others out you do not support your statements with arguments from your philosophy but instead just object or argue from emotion. If one says "This leads to X and I don't believe X"... where is the underlying argument if not from personal incredulity. Yes, that incredulity might stem from a philosophical position - but within the argument as stated there is nothing of the sort. Are we therefore meant to guess, perhaps? Also not true. You are now trying to hand-wave away my dismissal as being due to an issue of underlying philosophy, yet the objections are due to what you/others write, the logic of the argument you put forward - not the underlying assumptions. Maybe at the core of any disagreement is the fundamentally different assumptions, but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether one argues from emotion / personal incredulity. You are trying to conflate one with the other, which is disingenuous, not to mention logically flawed. The issue is not that I may disagree with your arguments, with your philosophy, and you with mine, but that arguments presented to either put forward your case or to dispute mine stem from personal incredulity or from emotion. It is also irrelevant whether that incredulity or emotion comes from actual arguments/logic you might have, but if you can't present it as anything other than personal incredulity or emotion then don't be surprised if that is how others see it. If someone is going to post that they disagree, or can't accept a position, then they should at least explain why they disagree or can't accept it - provide the logic. If all they have is a gut feel, or that the other position is abhorrent, then all they have is personal incredulity or an appeal to emotion - and it will be treated accordingly. So stop trying to excuse the manner in which one may make an argument just because they hold a certain underlying/different philosophy. It doesn't wash. A logically fallacious argument is a logically fallacious argument regardless of ones philosophy.