Lets suppose that most folks would agree, here, that it is beneficial to have discussion based only in factual information. I am curious as to what standard is prpoosed to benchmark something as factual? If science and research were used, how would one deal with inconclusive information sources, even those which have been subjected to "somewhat" rigiourous scientific investigation?

How would one deal with those taking somewhat reliable factual information, and extending the meaning beyond the factual reach (filling in the dots, which seems to be a function if the human mind). How does one deal with "cherry picking"of factual information and dismissing other valid factual information, to make a case already chosen? How would one set aside, (non factual) social, religious, (small p) political, idealogical differences, that seem to get discussions off course.

Different interpretations on the meaning of words even seem to have gotten discussions off course. How would one deal with that, as words ofen have a variety if definitions? Even the term ignorance may has a different meanings to different folks, often merely meaning what the other person puts forward.