[hmkpoker]

We need to have some sense of conclusion in order to intellectually accomplish anything. When something is sufficiently proven to us, we can take it as a given; we don't have to rethink heliocentric theory every time we blast a rocket into space. If we are to rethink something that we've already concluded, we need a good reason to do it.

If I have a PhD in economics, and I've sufficiently proven that the economy is non-zero-sum and that capitalism is a more useful structure for the majority than communism (just a for instance, I'm not trying to start a political discussion), and my hippie teenage son is whining about the evils of capitalism, should I A) try to teach him what I have proven to be corrct so that he can use it to his advantage, or B) reconsider my position?

If he actually does provide a good argument against, yes, I have to analyze it, and in the really, really rare chance that it is valid, I'll have to reconsider my own position.

BUT HE HAS TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE A GOOD ARGUMENT.