You might think that experts sitting down together and agreeing on something is a pretty common thing. In the sciences, it happens all the time. But in the humanities, like history or literature, it's not so frequent. Why is that? Could these consensus methods be helpful there too? Let's think about it.

Humanities deal with a lot of subjectivity. People's interpretations and experiences play a huge role. That's why reaching a consensus can be tricky. But just because it's difficult doesn't mean it's not valuable.

Imagine historians sitting down and coming to a shared understanding about a particular event. Or literary scholars agreeing on the best way to interpret a novel. Sure, there might still be disagreements, but a common ground could be reached.

The real question is, why aren't these consensus methods used more often in the humanities? One reason could be the fear of oversimplifying complex ideas. After all, humanities deal with nuances and depth that might get lost in a simple agreement.

But here's where it gets interesting. What if these methods could help bridge different perspectives? What if they could help us see the bigger picture? It's not about eliminating disagreements, but maybe making them more constructive.

So, should we start using expert consensus methods more in the humanities? It's a good question to ponder. Because at the end of the day, having experts agree on something can be pretty powerful, even in fields that deal with lots of subjectivity.

Expert Opinions in Humanities: Why Aren't They Used More Often?

Actions