كَثْرَةُ الِاخْتِلَافِ لِفَسَادِ الْأَنْظَارِ
Frequent disagreement can arise from defective reasoning.
A disputant may use irrelevant evidence, assume a false premise or make an invalid transition. Identifying such a defect does not dissolve the reality under investigation; it shows that the inquiry must follow more careful principles.
For example, a conclusion drawn from unrelated premises can be unsupported even if there is, independently, a true answer to the original question.
Two assessments must be kept distinct: whether the presented reasoning succeeds, and what is in fact true about the matter. Confusing the validity of an argument with the existence of truth leads from methodological criticism to unjustified skepticism.