Ugh. Can we respect other people viewpoints please? Even if Corwin's wrong you should repsect his opinion on the matter as he has studied it as much as you if not more so.
No.
"
Respecting opinion" is nothing more than rhetoric and thought-stopping cliché, commonly used by con-men to cover their insufficient capacity to support their badly supported position. People with such capacity never ask for respect for their opinion since they do not need to (that is, they have a fact-based position instead of "opinion". They can present these facts to show why they have a certain position, then change their position if further facts are presented that invalidate their former position).
If truth is important to you there is no such thing as "
respecting opinion", especially not in academic work where "opinion" is to be demolished, hacked and chewed (especially your own). If you do not feel truth is important, then you pay with your credibility and downgrade the value in what you have to say on any subject.
There is also no such thing as "studied more". If you spent anytime on an university you know that there's no such thing as "authority" in knowledge. Each specific narrow subject consists of
observations (or evidence) that shall be put on the table, then judged. Different "opinions" (positions) happen when people lack access to evidence. What is done then is to present such evidence. An academic change their "opinion" (positions) accordingly since carrying an "opinion" that deny evidence is dishonorable and asking someone to "respect my position" is pretty much throwing your credibility out of the window.
Because there are different approaches or perspectives in any given field, it's also common courtesy to carry multiple theories on how to combine the presented evidence at the same time. Thus no "straight scoop" exists, there is however "straight evidence". Let's take the "gospels" for example. In this case the artifacts (ancient copies) are the evidence. Then we test the evidence (Carbon-dating, paleography etc) which creates new evidence. Finally we put it all on the table and try to make sense of it all. We cannot exclude evidence because it doesn't fit our "opinion".