How scientists should disagree.
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 39048666.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1038/s41390-024-03430-x.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
Reflecting broader societal trends, a lack of civility has crept its way into scientific discourse. It has become routine for scientists who disagree with each other to make disparaging accusations, most commonly that they are "shills" or are being paid off by an interest group. Instead, we should keep four things in mind: (1) Most scientists who disagree with you are well-intentioned; (2) There could be a failure to communicate; (3) "Hanlon's Razor" - which asserts that we should "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" - is probably true; and (4) Like all humans, scientists have pride and do not like to be proven wrong. Most disagreements result from some combination of these. Only rarely should we consider that a disagreement is the result of something more nefarious, like corruption. IMPACT: Reflecting broader societal trends, a lack of civility has crept its way into scientific discourse. We must reverse this. The scientific community can lead the way toward a more civil society.