When experts disagree

[Nielsio]

[ 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 ]


Truth is not determined through opinion or through averaged opinion (voting).

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been saying this for a long time. I'am fairly suprised that no one seems to agree with it. I don't mean in cases where the middle is excluded from the nature of the problem, but in complex issues, say of nature v nuture, captilism vs socialism, pro-life v pro-choice. The reason is that 2 experts shouldn't come to different conclusions, so there is more to the problem then they each are using. If they are intelligent and experts in there feild under discussion, I assume an obvious error isn't being made, there is very little room for 1 of them to be utterly wrong.

Also any particular movement is reactionary to the one before it. And because of that reactionary aspect it typically overstears the "correct" solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, as long as the only allowable 'right' answers are a continuum, and the two schools of thought are as absolutely polarized as they possibly can be. In that case, the right answer almost definitionally has to be somewhere in the middle, especially when you are talking about multifactorial things like nature vs. nurture.

But this isn't always the case, and in fact is probably rarely the case. Its going to be just as often that two disagreeing experts both take positions on either side, but very close to, the 'middle' of whatever spectrum of possible right answers there are. In this case, one is probably closer than the other, since the space in between their positions takes up less of the possible space of opinions.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
nature v nuture, captilism vs socialism, pro-life v pro-choice

[/ QUOTE ]

All, I think, false dichotomies with no rational support.

Also, pro-choice and capitalism are clearly the correct answers, so I don't know what you mean about being in the middle [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[DougShrapnel]

Luckyme, I am certainly lacking in being able to understand the debate between Einstein vs Bohr. There are a few things to look at if you completely understand the debate. Stregth of conviction? Is "Expert status" even available? Predebate postion vs post debate position. History is written by winners, did the "winning side" (ie closer side) really just change their postion after the debate and claim complete victory.

On to the plate techtonics. Is there a middle ground?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been saying this for a long time. I'am fairly suprised that no one seems to agree with it. I don't mean in cases where the middle is excluded from the nature of the problem, but in complex issues, say of nature v nuture, captilism vs socialism, pro-life v pro-choice. The reason is that 2 experts shouldn't come to different conclusions, so there is more to the problem then they each are using. If they are intelligent and experts in there feild under discussion, I assume an obvious error isn't being made, there is very little room for 1 of them to be utterly wrong.

Also any particular movement is reactionary to the one before it. And because of that reactionary aspect it typically overstears the "correct" solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, as long as the only allowable 'right' answers are a continuum, and the two schools of thought are as absolutely polarized as they possibly can be. In that case, the right answer almost definitionally has to be somewhere in the middle, especially when you are talking about multifactorial things like nature vs. nurture.

But this isn't always the case, and in fact is probably rarely the case. Its going to be just as often that two disagreeing experts both take positions on either side, but very close to, the 'middle' of whatever spectrum of possible right answers there are. In this case, one is probably closer than the other, since the space in between their positions takes up less of the possible space of opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]That's a really important distiction, that the first time this topic was brough up was introduced by Utah. Addtionaly, I agree with your post entirely.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
On to the plate techtonics. Is there a middle ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you are on a slippery slope, punwise.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nature v nuture, captilism vs socialism, pro-life v pro-choice

[/ QUOTE ]

All, I think, false dichotomies with no rational support.

Also, pro-choice and capitalism are clearly the correct answers, so I don't know what you mean about being in the middle [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]You know I won't touch the capitilism debate. Yet abortion is such a less hot topic. So, pro-chioce until when? Conception?, 18 years of age?

[m_the0ry]

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]

[ 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?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nature v nuture, captilism vs socialism, pro-life v pro-choice

[/ QUOTE ]

All, I think, false dichotomies with no rational support.

Also, pro-choice and capitalism are clearly the correct answers, so I don't know what you mean about being in the middle [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]You know I won't touch the capitilism debate. Yet abortion is such a less hot topic. So, pro-chioce until when? Conception?, 18 years of age?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh boy. It was tongue-in-cheek. I even made you a smiley!

Okay, I think abortion should be legal until birth, and I don't think it's necessarily "wrong" or "right" in any absolute sense but I personally would rather have a child (which I never, ever want to do) than abort after significant brain development. First trimester sounds good as a personal decision.