For Lakatos (1963), pure science should not be adulterated with human idiosyncrasies, and contesting concepts should be dialectically argued, until arriving at a consensus. That is, arguments are posited, volleyed, until the final result is a gestalt of understanding that neither party could have arrived at alone. It is not about persuading or breaking other conceptions; opinions are flexible. Lakatos felt that if the argument is rational, there will be no emotional adherence to one side or the other, because both parties share the ultimate goal of collaboratively reaching the truth. Quakers for example, are notorious for dialectic discourse, as decisions made within their communities must be unanimous before actions are taken. It does take a long time, however, and a conscious effort must be made to leave your ego at the door!