>And in the vast majority of cases, when you ask that question about a specific problem: One of those men is wrong. Even if they're both smart. But how to tell?

>And in the vast majority of cases, when you ask that question about a specific problem: One of those men is wrong. Even if they're both smart. But how to tell? If a huge number of other smart and experienced people have been convinced by one of them ... well I'd go with that guy. You won't be right all the time but it's the best system we've come up with so far for things that don't conform to double blind placebo controlled studies or mathematical proofs. It literally is the best way to be right most often. This reminds me a lot of abstraction in software systems. For 95% of cases, the abstractions make things quicker in the end. For those 5% of edge cases which the abstractions don't cover properly, you spend inordinate amounts of time trying to get things to fit. The bigger point here is that trying to white-wash anything with a particular methodology is both the right and wrong thing to do. It's right because most of the time it will work, it's wrong because when it doesn't work, you will have a hell of a time dealing with it. The best system we have come up with so far is actually to take things on a case-by-case basis instead of trying to solve everything in one fell swoop. The problem is that one must be mindful as consistently as possible to achieve this. Most people are not capable of keeping that line of focus for an hour, let alone a day or their whole lives. Funnily enough, the solution to this is meditation, not a set of best practices or expert opinions.