When experts disagree

tomdemaine · #1 02-16-2007, 03:09 PM

I saw this post on another forum. I'm interested in this boards view.

"If two highly intelligent people who are experts in their field wildly disagree on a particular issue then the truth is more likely to lie somewhere in the middle than at one of the two extremes assuming that both are telling the truth about their opinions"

Agree or disagree and why?

thylacine · #2 02-16-2007, 03:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I saw this post on another forum. I'm interested in this boards view.

"If two highly intelligent people who are experts in their field wildly disagree on a particular issue then the truth is more likely to lie somewhere in the middle than at one of the two extremes assuming that both are telling the truth about their opinions"

Agree or disagree and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is clearly nonsense. Often there will be no meaningful concept of in "truth ... [lying] somewhere in the middle".

vhawk01 · #3 02-16-2007, 03:39 PM

If DS thinks he is getting 5:1 on a call, and Malmuth think he is getting 3:1 on a call, obviously they are really getting 4:1.

Skoob · #4 02-16-2007, 05:51 PM

The issue at hand would have to be some sort of unproven hypothesis. This doesn't work with odds in a HE game.

And then, there would have to be a large amount of subjectivity to the issue for "experts" to be so polarized.

I think we need an example of a "particular issue" to weigh in on this one.

m_the0ry · #5 02-20-2007, 09:51 PM

I have to agree this is absolute nonsense. A theory is disproven by counterexample. If a counterexample disproves one theory then the other stands. If a counterexample disproves both theory then neither stands. There's no such thing as a counterexample that disproves both and forces you to make an amalgamation out of the two theories. I don't see where this idea is coming from and it really just seems like stretching the use of occam's razor.

DougShrapnel · #6 02-20-2007, 10:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have to agree this is absolute nonsense. A theory is disproven by counterexample. If a counterexample disproves one theory then the other stands. If a counterexample disproves both theory then neither stands. There's no such thing as a counterexample that disproves both and forces you to make an amalgamation out of the two theories. I don't see where this idea is coming from and it really just seems like stretching the use of occam's razor.

[/ QUOTE ] Do you believe the theory of evolution remains the same as when darwin proposed it?

m_the0ry · #7 02-20-2007, 10:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe the theory of evolution remains the same as when darwin proposed it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to do something I'm not supposed to and answer your question with another question.

If I claim that Intelligent design is the reason for everything that Darwinism cannot explain, am I disagreeing with darwinism or am I submitting a novel theory?

arahant · #8 02-16-2007, 05:56 PM

depends on the number of variables in the decision. For a question with a small number of binary variables, the result is likely to be closer to one end or the other. For complex decisions where there is disagreement on a number of underlying assumptions, the true answer is likelier to fall in between.

MaxWeiss · #9 02-17-2007, 02:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
depends on the number of variables in the decision. For a question with a small number of binary variables, the result is likely to be closer to one end or the other. For complex decisions where there is disagreement on a number of underlying assumptions, the true answer is likelier to fall in between.

[/ QUOTE ]

madnak · #10 02-16-2007, 07:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I saw this post on another forum. I'm interested in this boards view.

"If two highly intelligent people who are experts in their field wildly disagree on a particular issue then the truth is more likely to lie somewhere in the middle than at one of the two extremes assuming that both are telling the truth about their opinions"

Agree or disagree and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree. In fact, when there are competing hypotheses typically one ends up being "more correct" than the others. A lot of what we consider common knowledge now was once fringe stuff about which experts wildly disagreed.

In the cases where no hypotheses are valid, I think it's more likely that the truth will come from way out of left field than that it will lie between them all.