We have different definitions of reasonable though. Your definition is smart people who are also respectable, which is a question of signaling and thus social status. My definition of reasonable has to do with who has the most accurate beliefs, given the amount of information present.
Although I doubt either of our definitions would involve someone claiming large swaths of mathematics are invalid. Do we agree that probability theory is valid, and that the point of disagreement is on whether or not it can be applied to "real world problems" ...?
Nah, we have the same definition of reasonable (what you said is yours). The disagreement is not even on whether probability theory can be applied, but only on how it should be applied. Example: 2 witnesses give contradictory testimony. It's reasonable for the jury to believe one, or to believe the other. This is what I mean by a question of fact on which reasonable people can disagree.
--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.