Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements

Dunja Seselja (Corresponding author)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


This paper examines lessons obtained by means of simulations in the form of agent-based models (ABMs) about the norms that are to guide disagreeing scientists. I focus on two types of epistemic and methodological norms: (i) norms that guide one’s attitude towards one’s own theory, and (ii) norms that guide one’s attitude towards the opponent’s theory. Concerning (i) I look into ABMs that have been designed to examine the context of peer disagreement. Here I challenge the conclusion that the given ABMs provide a support for the so-called Steadfast Norm, according to which one is epistemically justified in remaining steadfast in their beliefs in face of disagreeing peers. I argue that the proposed models at best provide evidence for a weaker norm, which concerns methodological steadfastness. Concerning (ii) I look into ABMs aimed at examining epistemic effects of scientific interaction. Here I argue that the models provide diverging suggestions and that the link between each ABM and the type of represented inquiry is still missing. Moreover, I examine alternative strategies of arguing in favor of the benefits of scientific interaction, relevant for contemporary discussions on scientific pluralism.
Original languageEnglish
Number of pages16
Issue numberXX
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 30 Mar 2019


  • Agent-based models
  • Epistemic toleration
  • Rational endorsement
  • Scientific disagreement
  • Scientific interaction
  • Scientific pluralism

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this