Productive Disagreement: A Framework for Resolving Theory Disputes

Researchers at an unspecified institution propose a five-step template for “theoretical adversarial collaboration,” a method for resolving disputes where experiments aren’t feasible. They differentiate this approach from empirical adversarial collaboration, which uses joint experiments, and outline a process focused on clarifying arguments and building the strongest possible counterarguments.

The template emphasizes “steel-manning,” where each side meticulously presents the other’s theory in its most favorable light. The framework aims to move beyond typical back-and-forth critiques by demanding substantial new insights.

Success hinges on either demonstrating a way for the theory to overcome objections or identifying where the theory needs revision. The researchers developed and tested this template during their own collaboration in philosophy and the foundations of physics. This method could offer a path forward for constructive dialogue in fields like philosophy and foundational science where direct empirical testing is difficult, potentially fostering progress where disagreements have stalled.