Many times, on the Internet, people assume that if someone states something, and no one contradicts that statement, then everyone agrees with what is said.
Sometimes that's true--and sometimes, the lack of contradiction results from a realistic assessment that there is no point in discussing the matter further.
Honest discussion only works when all parties approach the discussion in good faith, and are willing to honestly re-assess their positions to see if there is somewhere that they could be mistaken. If such a mistake is found, people need to be willing to correct that mistake.
If someone is not willing to engage in honest discussion, there is no shame in deciding that it's a waste of your valuable time to engage in less-than-honest discussion, and to simply walk away. After all, that time you'd burn up on "Is so!" "Is not!" "Is so!" "Is not!" is time you could spend:
- Working with a client on resolving pain, anxiety, or other symptoms;
- Enjoying time with your loved ones that will later be the stuff of which fond memories are made;
- Reading a fun or awesome or life-changing book;
- Watching a movie you've always wanted to get around to;
- Making music that has never existed before and never will again, but is absolutely transformative in the moment, or
- Any number of wonderful other activities--or restful non-activity--just waiting for you.
How do you know whether someone's interested in engaging in honest discussion?
You don't, always, but there are some red flags to warn you that they aren't.
Someone who wants to engage in honest discussion will connect the dots in their position for the people they're speaking to.
When you ask an honest question and then someone won't take the time and effort to connect the dots in their argument for you--when they say they "don't have the time to debate the research", or they point you to books by their favorite gurus and say "it's all there, just read it for yourself"--that's a big neon sign that their mind is already made up, and no amount of evidence will influence what they've decided to believe.
Not always, of course--some people eventually give up their adamant resistance, and actually examine the evidence for themselves.
You can't always tell who's going to do that, and who's not.
And sometimes, there is value in speaking out, even if there is no hope of honest discussion.
You may just want to go on record as someone who doesn't believe that statement--nothing more, nothing less.
You may recognize that there are many others reading without commenting, and you may want to point to the evidence for their benefit, rather than for the person who refuses to discuss it. You never know, and can never know, the effects of the seeds you're sowing--but you are having an effect, whether you see it or not.
You're the best judge of your situation, and you're the one to decide whether any given situation makes sense for you to engage in it or not.
But there is no shame in looking at the situation, deciding that it's hopeless, and resolving that the absolute best use of your time is to walk away from it, and spend your time and energy elsewhere. There are many other places on the Internet where learning and honest discussion is truly valued; there are lots of people there who want to hear what you think, based on the evidence, and to discuss with you what it all means.
Refusing to waste your time engaging in bad-faith arguments does not mean you agree to incorrect claims someone else is making--silence does not mean consent.