but trying for consensus for the sake of consensus
I think the aim is not consensus, but consistency. If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it's highly useful to know which one. The fact that both views have some domains where they seem to work better than the other is not a good excuse.
If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it's highly useful to know which one.
Unless of course you're operating in a situation best modelled by paraconsistent logic.
But finding that out would require looking.
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: