Learning from scientific disagreement



Published 26-04-2021
Bruno Borge
Nicolás Lo Guercio


The article addresses the question of how should scientific peers revise their beliefs (if at all) upon recognized disagreement. After presenting the basics of peer disagreement in sections 1 and 2, we focus, in section 3, on a concrete case of scientific disagreement, to wit, the dispute over the evidential status of randomized control trials in medical practice. The examination of this case motivates the idea that some scientific disagreements permit a steadfast reaction. In section 4, we support this conclusion by providing a normative argument in the same direction; if we are correct, typical reasons for conciliation are absent in this kind of scientific disagreements.

How to Cite

Borge, B., & Lo Guercio, N. (2021). Learning from scientific disagreement. THEORIA, 36(3), 375–398. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.21967
Abstract 408 | PDF Downloads 439 XML Downloads 117



Epistemology, Peer Disagreement, Scientific Disagreement, Evidence Based Medicine