No no I can see what you're saying, but I think you have both misunderstood each other. The stuff about DNA and filters I didn't really understand but you seemed to feel confident enough of his meaning to reply to his post.

From the way I am seeing your two different points, they are both equally valid. You do also seem to have different interpretations of 'scope'. Kedaman has said that although your scope (by his meaning of scope - another definition of scope is 'The area covered by a given activity or subject') can be different to humanity as a whole, it can never be larger since the scope of an individual is a subset of the scope of humanity. Gen-X has used a different definition of scope (I suspect it was from dictionary.com) to prove a different point, saying that an individual can have ideas and discover things that no other part of humanity could do. These two ideas are not mutually exclusive, in fact in some ways they imply one another.

With the proposal that more people believing something doesn't make it more true I think kedaman is following on from the idea that the scope of humanity is the union of the scopes of all individuals, not the intersection of the scopes. The idea being that, as he said "the common parts are expected to be more true" (common parts = the intersections of the scopes of individuals) and although that information becomes more reliable in some ways, it doesn't change the truth or untruth of it.

I think language is a bit of a barrier here but with a little thought and a little empathy you can fathom out the gist of it.

So in summary, Gen-X is equally as right as Kedaman