Learning from scientific disagreement

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