Shouldn’t people research and discuss topics in a calm and rational manner instead of some sort of “you vs me” type of mentality?
In: 1
If you’re talking about reasoned debate between actual experts, absolutely, controversy is an acceptable part of how science works. Scientists do disagree with each other all the time on many aspects of their craft, from the details to the fundamentals. There are times when this can get rather heated, as one can imagine, but it’s not out of line with the norms of the community. There are also areas that are surrounded in legitimate uncertainty, where it is hard to know what is true and what is not, and scientists frequently not only disagree about the details here, but even the right way to go about thinking about the subject at hand.
What people tend to react poorly to are a) people arguing with science because of what are perceived to be “non-scientific” reasons (like religious beliefs), b) campaigns that are essentially designed to undermine the authority of science (in the name of various causes, including but not limited to religion, industrial deregulation, conspiracy theories, politics, etc.), and c) people who are not experts and who are not trained in the norms or content of science who take it upon themselves to undermine science for whatever reason.
None of the above are considered to be part of the “norms of science” generally speaking. Indeed, they are perceived as being anti-science — they are designed to undermine scientific authority and prestige. There are many reasons why people might engage in the above behaviors. There are even reasons in which some experts may engage in the above behaviors (for example, there were scientists paid by the tobacco industry to produce results that said cigarettes were not harmful). But this kind of “controversy” is not seen as advancing efforts towards finding the truth; it is about muddying the waters, often for political purposes.
Latest Answers