"The lower cannot see the higher".
It's an intriguing idea that seems obvious on the face of it. Two people have an argument, one knows more about the subject matter that the other, the more knowledgable person is right, right?
But how can they tell who knows more? One says, "You don't understand", the other says the same. "I can see that you don't understand, because I do, and the lower cannot see the higher".
Such a dilemma... is there any solution?
It depends on what they are discussing. There are facts and there are opinions and there are opinions based on facts.
If the discussion is solely based on opinion (without facts) then it is impossible for either to be "right".
If the opinions are based on fact then usually the one whose opinion comes closer to real fact is probably closer to the truth (right) - I don't like the word because it sounds as if there is an absolute right.
The reason someone may suggest that the other doesn't understand something is not because she/he believes that they know more, but, rather, because there are objective facts that support one and not the other. This usually stems from a deeper understanding of whatever the subject is.
The ultimate test will always be reality and fact.
Now, there are issues and problems that cannot be solved in that way, and then, all you have are theories that either conform closer to observed reality or not (keeping in mind that observed reality can be deceptive).
So, in answer to your question, if I need surgery I'm going to seek out a surgeon not a street sweeper. And then, I would look for a surgeon whose expertise and practical knowledge are the best one can find. Remember again, the best is relative to some finite group from which one can choose and not all possible surgeons.
In the end, if your hypothesis conforms closer to reality than any other, all things being equal, and even if you can't PROVE it, the odds are that it is correct. And sometimes, a probability is all we have. We have to learn to live with uncertainty.
Another thing to keep in mind is that knowledge is dynamic: what we knew 100 years ago is not interchangeable and cannot be measured by the same metric that you would use today.
