theory, practice, and details

it is great to have theory as starting point.
but it is worthless if we dont confirm it at the field.
and if we dont provide all the details.
sometimes is better to start with results and then develop the theory to explain it.
but it happens that, even if we have a nice theory that makes sense to us, or if we get some results at the field, some1 will disagree and start a discussion where will not reach an agreement.
and this may happen with fellows that are well known, or that have good education.
why this happens?
as Don Stackhouse said: "the devil is in the details".
problem is, if we dont get together and show our planes and study and analize them and all the details, and do the testing together, at same place and time, it is impossible to have all the details and reach the right conclusions.
i will bring an example where this could be understood:
suppose 2 fellows get an identical plane ready made. as i am into 2 meters sailplane i will suggest the radian, that is an excellent thermal plane and comes with everything, ready to fly. that is, we only need to charge the battery, do the binding, test for range and go. both guys watch each others plane and confirm everything. cg, decalage, whatever. then fly both planes and exchange them so everything looks all right. then 1 of them makes a change like moving the cg. and so on. only 1 change at a time. they are flying the same plane on same weather conditions. then it is possible to reach same conclusions. if this is not done exactly this way, there is the possibility of discrepancies. that is why there are so many discussions that lead nowhere. so it means that 2 or more fellows may be right on what they say: because the devil is in the details.
think about it.