or large, or extended in directions, sides, and spatial regions. If you may judge that the unseen differs from the observable in this respect, why may it not be said that, although anything visible in the observable realm must face the viewer, what is visible in the unseen cannot be so?”

He should be told: This is a dialectical objection, not a proof either in debate or in reasoned inquiry, as explained above. For it may be said: What you have cited in the case used to press your objection must be situated in a direction. If that case is equivalent to the disputed case, then what they have presented concerning the disputed case constitutes proof in both instances. At most, they have erred concerning the case used to press the objection—the case serving as a counterexample—and the counterargument and objection are valid.

Your interlocutor may tell you: The distinction between the counterexample and the disputed case is such-and-such. If the distinction holds, the counterexample fails; but if the distinction fails, you reject