[Edit: Please read the whole question, or at least the new "N.b" paragraph, that I added just now to the end of the question, before attempting to answer it.]
I'm asking this because recently Conifold addressed two posts to me in the Symposium, which is the main chat room for Philosophy Stack Exchange, and I can't understand either of them.
The weird thing is that I have been strongly influenced by each of the posts, and now have major new doubts about not only the truth of illusionism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2n-s6C1iYQ&list=PLhgvALi0LQGXIA7cKNmGNTiQ7dpS-7dLw), but even about whether the theory, for want of a better word, deserves any more attention than it currently gets. The latter is something I was a hundred percent sure of before reading Conifold's posts and reading various Wikipedia articles and so on, in a vain attempt to learn enough to be able to understand Conifold's argument(s).
I asked this question about Conifold's first post in the Symposium. No one was able to make me understand it.
I can see that Conifold seems to me to know what he is talking about, and that no one else is arguing against his position(s). And some people expressed agreement with him, although I couldn't understand their arguments either.
Googling around I can't find anything that addresses (not even close) the question of whether I should be influenced at all, let alone a lot, by an argument that I can't follow. [This](https://www.quora.com/You-just-dont-understand-seems-like-a-powerful-argument-tactic-How-should-we-respond-to-that which asks about when someone ) is the closest to it that I could find was: https://www.quora.com/You-just-dont-understand-seems-like-a-powerful-argument-tactic-How-should-we-respond-to-that .
But what about when the only person saying it is me? I am saying, "I just don't understand." And I am being completely sincere.
I knew that professional philosopher's jargon can be incomprehensible to me.
I also knew that the majority of professional philosophers disagreed with illusionism, and that some of them are quite passionate in their disagreement, for example Galen Strawson who said in his recent New York Times article, "What is the silliest claim ever made? The competition is fierce, but I think the answer is easy. Some people have denied the existence of consciousness: conscious experience, the subjective character of experience, the “what-it-is-like” of experience. Next to this denial—I’ll call it “the Denial”—every known religious belief is only a little less sensible than the belief that grass is green."
So I was not exactly surprised by Conifold's posts, and had already concluded that there were presumably out there philosophy papers that disagreed with illusionism and did so using language that I could barely begin to fathom.
I was not at all surprised that when I clicked on Conifold's link to the SEP article about ontic structural realim (what a phrase), and started reading the article, I found that about once per two lines there was a term of art that I could not understand at all.
And yet, I still found myself influenced strongly. I guess part of it was that I couldn't fault any of the arguments, or indeed anything in Conifold's posts.
Maybe one reason for this is the fact that ontic structural realism, so far as I can grasp it, is something I find highly relevant a interesting (mainly because I think science is underrated), and yet had never heard of.
I don't mean to suggest that if I understood all the jargon terms I would then be able to understand Conifold's argument(s). I suspect that I still wouldn't, especially since Conifold and others have seemingly created plain English versions of the arguments and I still can't understand.
Also, I respected Conifold's opinions, and I had seen brief comments by him that indicated that he wasn't attracted to illusionism, and that had not sown doubt in my mind to any significant degree. It was his incomprehensible argument(s) that had that effect.
N.b. Several answers have not answered the question that I asked but have answered a slightly different question, which is: "Should I ever be influenced by the mere fact that someone I respect has let me know that he is of a particular opinion?"
As I said, I respected Conifold, and I knew he was not impressed by illusionism, and this did not significantly affect my opinions about illusionism. I am not asking about that sort of thing.