Disagreement Case Studies
I’d love to hear posts (on this blog or others) describing disagreement case studies. That is, tell us about a specific disagreement (on a matter of fact not value) that you have with specific other reasonably respectable people, and tell us how you reconcile that disagreement with the irrationality of forseeing to disagree.
You know their opinion, and they know your opinion, and yet you hold differing opinions. You realize that both your opinion and theirs may result in part from defects, such as thinking errors or not knowing something that the other knows. So:
Do you conclude just from the fact that they disagree that they must have more defects?
Do you think they realize that they can have defects, such as thinking errors or knowing less?
Should the fact that you disagree be a clue to them about their defects? Is it a clue about yours?
Do they adjust their estimates enough for the possibility of their defects? If not, why not?
What clues suggest to you that they have more defects, or under-adjust for them?
What clues suggest to them that you have more defects, or under-adjust?
Do you both have access to these clues, and if so do you interpret them differently?
Do you each realize some clues might be hidden?
Does your inability to answer any of these questions suggest you have defects?
Consider all these questions again for your meta-disagreement about who has more defects.
Some people’s answers come down to "I just know I’m smarter; I have no reasons." I am writing a book on disagreement and want to include case studies like yours in my book.
Added: If many are involved in your disagreement, consider these questions about other people on all sides. If your case is interesting, I’m willing to interview you by phone to walk you through this line of questioning.
Kirk, this is helpful yes, thank you.
The first step is always to define what you're talking about. In the case I am commenting on, I disagree that there exists a body of scientific information that establishes with a high probability that a nuclear process known as 'cold fusion' exists which produces 'excess heat'. To that end, I formulated and published what I consider to be a non-nuclear explanation for the extant body of data regarding apparent excess heat. That publication has been challeged directly once, and I have defended it. And it has been indirectly challenged another time, and I defended that (both times in print). So:
# Do you conclude just from the fact that they disagree that they must have more defects?No.
# Do you think they realize that they can have defects, such as thinking errors or knowing less?Yes, in principle, but in practice they believe they have eliminated all significant probability that they have errors. (I believe they also believe a non-expert in the field could not identify significant defects.)
# Should the fact that you disagree be a clue to them about their defects? Is it a clue about yours?Normally, the fact that a disagreement has been published is both an indication that I disagee, which should be a clue to them, and it also indicates at least one other agrees with me (via the peer review system), which should also be a clue. The fact that the one I am disagreeing with also has published an intended rebuttal indicates the same for that side, which should be a clue to me I suppose. Both sides supposedly try to publish the clearest presentation of their position they can.
# Do they adjust their estimates enough for the possibility of their defects? If not, why not?This is a little hard to answer, but I would say no, because as I havenoted before, my counterproposal is ignored, rather than acted on. Inscience when a valid counterproposal is made, meaning one cannot finda valid reason to reject it, the standard response is to go back to thelab and conduct new and different experiments aimed at resolving theissues. Why they don't do this would be pure speculation on my part.I have indicated that the one author I have dealt with in detailseems to just simply reject my proposal for nonscientific reasons.
# What clues suggest to you that they have more defects, or under-adjust for them?That their published proposal does not consider at all mycounter-proposal. That when they are in receipt of mycounter-proposal they reject it for spurious reasons.
# What clues suggest to them that you have more defects, or under-adjust?Good question. The short answer is that I don't know. They havesuggested that I am incapable of cogent commenting unless I havepersonally conducted equivalent experiments, which I have not.However, my proposal rests on data analysis methods, not datacollection methods, so their point is moot. But this may notbe the primary reason they do not accept my proposal.
# Do you both have access to these clues, and if so do you interpret them differently?Absolutely yes to both questions. That is the crux of the issue.We propose different mechanisms that produce the 'clues' (data).
# Do you each realize some clues might be hidden?Of course, finding the hidden clues (getting the data) is what science is all about. A scientific publication, while supposedly presenting a very good case, is actually a request to the general audience for any relevant comments. Theoretically, the 'deal is not ever done', and the best theories are subject to rejection. In practice, a lot of disagreements arise from people refusing to act like this is true.
# Does your inability to answer any of these questions suggest you have defects?I wasn't unable to answer for myself. I also don't have ESP, soI can't say for the others. Is that a defect?
# Consider all these questions again for your meta-disagreement about who has more defects.OK, I take this question to mean I should consider why my 'opponents'won't listen to me, and vice versa. The problem is that I have listenedto them, in great detail. If my counter-proposal is not correct, theirposition is the default fall-back position, which I have never denied(in other words, cold fusion is a possibility if no other explanationworks). On the other side, they don't accept my position, but are unableto technically defend their lack of acceptance, which is the requirementfor doing 'good' science, i.e. if they want to reject my proposal withoutsupplying new relevant data, they have to define a logical error.which they have not done.
So does this help for your case study?