> Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). But how is that relevant to this conversation? Some amount of proof is suf

> Their point is that no amount of proof is sufficient for some people (the fringe). But how is that relevant to this conversation? Some amount of proof is sufficient for most people. Where does convincing the "fringe" come in? Is he accusing his parent of being "fringe" for noting a lack of evidence in a context where it should be trivial to gather? > It'd be cool if there was any evidence at all. > You can't convince the fringe with evidence! It's non-sequitur.