Commenting and Popperian philosophy

-
One way of convincing yourself of a theory or a belief is, as Popper would say, to try your best to find a counter example. Any belief holds only as long as you cannot find a counter example to it.

Quite often, when I'm reading somebody's blog and am half convinced of the opinion expressed, I see or am able to frame a counter-example. When this happens, one way would be to immdiately dismiss the opinion of that blogger as false, but that would be unfair. There is every possibility that the blogger has an explanation for my counter-example in his/her scheme of understanding, just that I haven't been able to fully comprehend the thread of logic. That's when I post the comment with the counter-example and wait for the blogger's explanation to it.

This scheme has the potential flaw that I might be misunderstood. Sometimes in two different comments to different posts of the same blogger, I provide conflicting counter examples in response to the blogger's different opinions. Potential misunderstanding arises when people assume my comments to be my personal opinion and I am perceived as inconsistent. In many cases those comments are personal opinions, but in many others they are just counter-examples for which I need the explanation before I'm convinced.

The underlying assumption is that the bloggers on whose blogs I'm commenting understand me well enough to realise the subtle difference....this assumption has sometimes proved to be false.