I'm curious as to where RangerDave sits on that divide; I think we all know where my position and such resides.

RD this idea that reality exists in the middle is illogical in the extreme.

If we have two people with two opposing views both with a large number of adherents. The first desires to kill you and the second desires for you not to be harmed - is the correct solution then to only have yourself maimed?

You're doing a good job of providing an example of a Golden Mean fallacy and you are correct; the right answer is not necessarily in the middle all the time.

However, merely showing that the fallacy exists is not enough - you need to show why the right answer is not necessarily in the middle in this particular case. The example you gave only shows how the fallacy works; it doesn't establish anything about this issue.

I cannot show this to anyone in the specific incident until they understand the mistake in the general.

It's also possible there is no "right way" or "wrong way" here. Two mutual fund managers may take two very different tactics with regard to investing, and yet achieve the same end result. Neither was right, neither was wrong. It is entirely possible that someone could combine elements of the two and end up performing far better. It is also possible that someone could combine elements of the two and end up performing far worse.

There's a tendency among ideologues to look at the world in binary ways. Many, perhaps most things are not simply right or wrong, black or white.

So why didn't you show it right after you gave the example to illustrate the fallacy?

RangerDave:

Alright, I'll state quite simply that "John Maynard Keynes was wrong" (tm), and give you this link as a starting point ...

"How Government Prolonged the Great Depression

RD this idea that reality exists in the middle is illogical in the extreme.

Agreed, if the assertion is in the form of "B is between A and C; therefore B is correct." However, that's not what I'm asserting. My view is that "Neither A nor C are likely to be 100% correct or 100% incorrect; therefore there is some combination of the two (though not necessarily the midpoint), B, which is likely to be more correct than either A or C."

It's an assertion of probability given the available evidence (and my limited ability to evaluate such evidence), not logical necessity.

It is not much better to be of the consideration that "B is between A and C; therefore B is more likley correct.".

Think of it like an investing strategy. Given necessarily imperfect knowledge, I am more likely to protect and gradually increase my assets if I have a diversified portfolio than if I put all my eggs in one basket.

Ditto for economic theories. Given the limits of human knowledge and wisdom, neither the Keynesians nor the Austrians (nor anyone else, for that matter) are likely to have it all figured out, so a policy approach that considers and incorporates elements of both perspectives is more likely to avoid catastrophic error and thus be successful in the long-run than a policy approach that marries itself wholly to a single world-view.

I thought the scope was limited to the theory of the business cycle outlined in the video - not the scope of the entirity of the two schools of thought.