Non-Exclusivity

From Zanecorpwiki

"Two sides" is a common way reason about things. Part of the problem is one of Exagerated Differences. Even more fundamentally, though, there's a key idea that is often trammeled by the media and/or the way our animal brain sorts things: most views are not mutually exclusive.

It's not just a question of "shades of grey" either. In other words, it's not necessarily the case that "the truth" lies along some real-monetarist spectrum, and if only we could triangulate the right point, we'd have it.

In some cases, I think that is (or will turn out to be) correct. However, there is another totally different option.

In the spectrum view, you're talking about a question rooted in an assumption of co-linearity. It's entirely possible, and I would say even likely, that in some cases the questions posed and answered by the two views are orthogonal. Meaning there are some things where one side really doesn't have much to say. The reaction may be that since "my side" has nothing to say it means the other side wrong in saying anything, but it's at least sometimes the case that the thing being discussed not even a question your side addresses.

There is yet a third possibility. The two systems may being mapping the same space using a different transform. In other words, if we assume some underlying, objective reality and grant that our perception of reality is a mapping function, then in some instances the two sides may be describing the same fundamental thing. The danger here is that we mistake even radically different descriptions and language for disagreement when in fact the difference is more lexical than anything else.