Please be cautious about the fallacy of "middle ground." What would the middle ground be if one side is arguing that we should have ethnic cleansing and the other side is arguing that we shouldn't? That we should have "some" ethnic cleansing? In many cases, in many arguments, there are very definite right and wrong sides.
This country's dialog about most everything these days is destroyed by middle ground thinking.
In our case here, one side is demanding unquestioned faith in their research and the inferences they are making.
The other side is demanding a reasoned discussion based on confirmable facts and without speculation.
So, is our middle ground that we would accept a few non-confirmable facts and just a touch of speculation?
If there's a middle ground we should agree to, I think it should be that both sides should be able to express their opinions without those on the other side calling them names, calling them suspect of some nefarious plot, adding them to an ignore list of blasphemers, and drowning their opinions with synchronized inanities and non sequitur.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
