[Trantor]

I had assumed he had arrived at his conviction by using all the intellectual weaponry at his disposal and that he had used sound logic and had steered clear of inconsistency in doing so. It seems to me arguing for his conviction in this way seems entirely proper.

Are you arguing this is no proper reason to form a conviction and argue for them?

What other criteria need to be satisfied before this is proper? Maybe you think this is can never be proper?