pp 1–19 | Cite as

Let’s not agree to disagree: the role of strategic disagreement in science

  • Carlos SantanaEmail author
S.I.: Disagreement in Science


Supposedly, stubbornness on the part of scientists—an unwillingness to change one’s position on a scientific issue even in the face of countervailing evidence—helps efficiently divide scientific labor. Maintaining disagreement is important because it keeps scientists pursuing a diversity of leads rather than all working on the most promising, and stubbornness helps preserve this disagreement. Planck’s observation that “Science progresses one funeral at a time” might therefore be an insight into epistemically beneficial stubbornness on the part of researchers. In conversation with extant formal models, recent empirical research, and a novel agent-based model of my own I explore whether the epistemic goods which stubbornness can secure—disagreement and diversity—are attainable through less-costly methods. I make the case that they are, at least in part, and also use my modeling results to show that if stubbornness is scientifically valuable, it still involves a willingness to change one’s mind.


Social structure of science Epistemic diversity Social epistemology Agent-based model 



  1. Alexander, J. M., Himmelreich, J., & Thompson, C. (2015). Epistemic landscapes, optimal search, and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 424–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohman, J. (2006). Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme, 3(3), 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyer-Kassem, T., & Imbert, C. (2015). Scientific collaboration: do two heads need to be more than twice better than one? Philosophy of Science, 82(4), 667–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bright, L. K. (2017). On fraud. Philosophical Studies, 174(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bright, L. K. (2018). Du Bois’ democratic defence of the value free ideal. Synthese, 195, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dechêne, A., Stahl, C., Hansen, J., & Wänke, M. (2010). The truth about the truth: A meta-analytic review of the truth effect. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(2), 238–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dellsén, F. (2018). The epistemic value of expert autonomy. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 85.Google Scholar
  8. Deszo, C., & Ross, D. (2008). When women rank high, firms profit. New York: Columbia Business School Ideas at Work.Google Scholar
  9. Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American Psychologist, 65(3), 216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N. M., Payne, B. K., & Marsh, E. J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fleisher, W. (2017). Rational endorsement. Philosophical Studies, 175, 1–27.Google Scholar
  12. Foley, R. (1987). Epistemic rationality and scientific rationality. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 1(2), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freeman, R. B., & Huang, W. (2014). Collaboration: Strength in diversity. Nature News, 513(7518), 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frey, D., & Šešelja, D. (2018). Robustness and idealizations in agent-based models of scientific interaction. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 6, 31.Google Scholar
  15. Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Bramson, A., Holman, B., McGeehan, S., & Berger, W. J. (2019). Diversity, ability, and expertise in epistemic communities. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 98–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grim, P., Singer, D. J., Fisher, S., Bramson, A., Berger, W. J., Reade, C., et al. (2013). Scientific networks on data landscapes: Question difficulty, epistemic success, and convergence. Episteme, 10(4), 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Heesen, R. (2017). Communism and the incentive to share in science. Philosophy of Science, 84(4), 698–716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heesen, R. (2018). The credit incentive to Be a maverick. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 115, 661.Google Scholar
  19. Hong, L., & Page, S. E. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), 16385–16389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hull, D. L. (1990). Science as a process: An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Keller, E. F. (1984). A feeling for the organism, 10th aniversary edition: The life and work of Barbara McClintock. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mayo-Wilson, C., Zollman, K. J., & Danks, D. (2011). The independence thesis: When individual and social epistemology diverge. Philosophy of Science, 78(4), 653–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Page, S. E. (2007). Making the difference: Applying a logic of diversity. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 6–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pennisi, E. (2007). Jumping genes hop into the evolutionary limelight. Science, 317(5840), 894–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Phillips, K. W., Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. (2006). Surface-level diversity and decision-making in groups: When does deep-level similarity help? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(4), 467–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Planck, M. (1949). Scientific autobiography and other papers, trans. F. Gaynor. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
  28. Reaves, M. L., Sinha, S., Rabinowitz, J. D., Kruglyak, L., & Redfield, R. J. (2012). Absence of detectable arsenate in DNA from arsenate-grown GFAJ-1 cells. Science, 337(6093), 470–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenstock, S., Bruner, J., & O’Connor, C. (2017). In epistemic networks, Is less really more? Philosophy of Science, 84(2), 234–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Santana, C. (2018). Why not all evidence is scientific evidence. Episteme, 15(2), 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Singer, D. J. (2019). Diversity, not randomness, trumps ability. Philosophy of Science, 86(1), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, M. K., Trivers, R., & von Hippel, W. (2017). Self-deception facilitates interpersonal persuasion. Journal of Economic Psychology, 63, 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Solomon, M. (2001). Social empiricism (p. 186). Cambridge: MIT press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strevens, M. (2003). The role of the priority rule in science. The Journal of Philosophy, 100(2), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taubes, G. (1993). Bad science: The short life and weird times of cold fusion. Random House.Google Scholar
  37. Thagard, P. (2004). Rationality and science. In Handbook of rationality (pp. 363–379).Google Scholar
  38. Thoma, J. (2015). The epistemic division of labor revisited. Philosophy of Science, 82(3), 454–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(1), 1–16. Scholar
  40. Weatherall, J. O., & O’Connor, C. (2018). Endogenous epistemic factionalization: A network epistemology approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.08131.
  41. Weisberg, M., & Muldoon, R. (2009). Epistemic landscapes and the division of cognitive labor. Philosophy of Science, 76(2), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zamora Bonilla, J. P. (2002). Scientific inference and the pursuit of fame: A contractarian approach. Philosophy of Science, 69(2), 300–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Zollman, K. J. (2010). The epistemic benefit of transient diversity. Erkenntnis, 72(1), 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zollman, K. J. (2018). The credit economy and the economic rationality of science. The Journal of Philosophy, 115(1), 5–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of UtahSalt Lake CityUSA

Personalised recommendations