What predictably happens in its own accord when trying to understand someone else's needs is that opposing viewpoints will most assuredly collide. In the present instance, it seems especially gratuitous (uncalled for in current circumstances) to restrict the realities of overly apparent explanatory attributions to understand the world (attribution theory is a concept in social psychology referring to how individuals explain causes of behavior and events). I believe it is only when you are asked to believe in reason that this may even be brought up. But in the end, it will be said we do reach truths by inferences, surely. If the value of my reasoning is in doubt, (ie: show me proof that there are no non-proofs - which is of course nonsensical), then you may give up all claim to truth. I only seek to build a bridge in order to avoid a deadlock of ideology.