This is the internet, we've all seen it. Most of us, being an opinionated group, have at some time or another even been perpetrators. But how do we know our sources are reliable? How can we recognize when a test is flawed or a conclusion is bunk? How do we recognize when some random poster is "full of it" or knows what they're talking about?
There's a reason that expert opinions are still considered to be, well, opinions. And I've more than once had professors in college tell me that my textbook was wrong. So if we can't fully trust the official answers, how do we know?
I'll post my own thoughts later, but to kickstart the conversation a bit, I'll add an observation. Particularly in my Economic courses, we begin with simple models, come to a conclusion, and then in advanced courses add elements to the model which refute or call those conclusions into question. I've found similar patterns in other conversations; an answer seems right until you throw some new element into the mix. And experts, from what I can tell, seem to disagree with one another based on which element they consider to play a more important role, and not because the other is "just wrong." I think that's an interesting framework for consideration.
There's a reason that expert opinions are still considered to be, well, opinions. And I've more than once had professors in college tell me that my textbook was wrong. So if we can't fully trust the official answers, how do we know?
I'll post my own thoughts later, but to kickstart the conversation a bit, I'll add an observation. Particularly in my Economic courses, we begin with simple models, come to a conclusion, and then in advanced courses add elements to the model which refute or call those conclusions into question. I've found similar patterns in other conversations; an answer seems right until you throw some new element into the mix. And experts, from what I can tell, seem to disagree with one another based on which element they consider to play a more important role, and not because the other is "just wrong." I think that's an interesting framework for consideration.