In this case, people who's research I trust say something and I more or less accept it as true. I say more or less, because as Huck's example showed, even the people who's business it is to ascertain the truth do not always agree.
That's true, but mostly it is because our field is so small, and the issues are so small, that problems appear magnified. It is never personal, however heated the discussion (I don't believe it is, although we are all hurt from time to time; it's superficial, and we know it).
It's like a game where we don't know how many squares are on the board, although we have a good idea, and we don't know exactly how many pieces are on the board, but we have a good idea, but, most importantly, we can't agree on the
rules of the game - how to move the pieces, the methodology. There is also no way to know if you have won, since this game - history - relies on accidents and there is no certain end, at least not yet. Nobody knows when, or even if, the game will end (that would presumably be something like the discovery of the designer's notes on the game - that no doubt futile hope would settle a lot of our debates). A better analogy might be a puzzle, where we have most of the edges placed, and a lot of the middle done, but there is no complete agreement on large sections, because many of the pieces are missing.
But we keep playing, perhaps because of some aesthetic compulsion, it just attracts us (for my part, I want to know the truth, or as close as possible) - and nobody else understands us anyway. So like each other or hate each other - in the context of the game of course - we play with who comes. There isn't any other choice, in such a small field with no institutional or external backing, and certainly no institutional reward (credentials,
de jure expertise - you just have to
earn your reputation here, become a
de facto expert).
I am not 100% certain of anything when it comes to the occult. Seriously.