When experts disagree

[DougShrapnel]

Sorry I was trying to level you.

[m_the0ry]

[ 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?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]I will take that as a no. Now, I am chargrined to be alluding to ID proponents as experts, but again my statement is that it's near impossible for 1 expert to be entirely right and the other to be utterly wrong.

To answer your question with a question for clarity, who's darwinism? But I've already made it clear that I believe darwinism has changed from what Darwin's opinion was of it.

[madnak]

The conflicts involving the theory of evolution have typically had "winners." I'm not sure if this is the most relevant point.

[m_the0ry]

Well, my point is that disagreements arise from different explainations of the same phenomena. The explaination is manifestly self-reliant in that no single constituent mechanism can operate on its own. If a mechanism can operate on its own, then it is its own novel theory.

As far as capitalism and socialism? First, there is a gradient from capitalism to socialism. It isn't a dichotomy, as stated before. Second all conjectures are hypothetical because they cannot be tested as a purely socialist or capitalist nation is inconcievable. That is to say, they are both concepts not theories.

[Duke]

Not all experts are equal. A five minute conversation would yield a better answer as to who is more likely correct, based on their styles of argument and reasons for their ideas. Similar tactics can be used to identify [censored] in any number of fields (not only science).

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, my point is that disagreements arise from different explainations of the same phenomena. The explaination is manifestly self-reliant in that no single constituent mechanism can operate on its own. If a mechanism can operate on its own, then it is its own novel theory.



[/ QUOTE ]If you mean that the slightest change in a theory, makes it, it's own theory seperate from the orginal theory. Then I believe you have proven my point quite effectively. Even tho we consider darwin's origin to be closer to the truth than the "experts" of his day, his theory is still wrong at least in part, as it has changed from his original envision.

As the problem originally stated, it has nothing to do with an average of the 2 postions, or even a distribution on the scale inbetween. Simply that if there is a continuim, and experts disagree the truth is likely to lie inbetween the 2 of them. The 2nd most outcome of truth is that both are wrong. And lastly(hardly ever) that one of them is entirely correct. The proposition is derived directly from the tendecy and necessity to bunch independent mechinisms together. It gains strenght because it's "experts". And the final slamdunk is the real inability to arrive at exact truth in the real world. The theoritical realm, which includes mathematics, doesn't have that final slamdunk going for it, or necessity to bunch independent mechinisms. But it's still experts disagreeing, that shouldn't happen unless bias is introduced, clear errors, or uncontrollable speculation for estimations. And if it's an estimation problem I'd take someplace in the middle if I was a betting man.

Perhaps I would need to chnage "expert" to "world class", or "elite" to have the statement hold. But once that is done, I believe I have a very strong case.

[tame_deuces]

[ 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 ]

Read through this thread and it is interesting one. In academics experts disagree all the time, which is usually HOW one discovers something which is most likely closest to the truth.

Actually the biggest academical 'puzzles' throughout history have usually come when almost everyone agreed because it makes thinking outside the box so incredibly difficult.

I know I didn't answer the topic, but I thought the rest of the posts in the thread answered the specific question so good, I'd just muse over the subject instead. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]