This line of reasoning could probably be applied to any scientific debate between two greats. Both experts are trying to qualitatively describe how the current model coheres or disagrees with their internal models of reality. Since both have very good (but also very different) internal models, you get two accurate impressions of the bigger picture, however vague or incomplete.
It's like the parable of the five blind men who encounter an elephant.
They didn't though! They had access to the same body of work, but their individual biases, tastes, and intuitions would have skewed both which research they paid attention to, and how much credence they gave it.
This is essentially my point. We all have access to the same set of data, but we all look at it a little differently.
It's like the parable of the five blind men who encounter an elephant.