The principles of scientific debate and respectful disagreement

An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

No, it isn't!

Yes, it is! It isn't just contradiction.

– Argument Clinic, Monty Python’s Previous Record

To the Editor

ANZJP debate papers are a valuable opportunity to briefly present scientific arguments on a contentious topic in order to promote further discussion. Indeed, diversity of opinion and scientific discourse are to be actively encouraged and are a fundamental basis for improving the scientific endeavour. The onus on both sides of a scientific debate is to present reasoned, evidence-based logical argumentation. Authors should methodically and respectfully present scientific arguments, according to accepted conventions of logical argumentation (Foegeding, 2017). Such logical argumentation includes responding to accurate representations of the points being addressed, based on the evidence presented by interlocutors. Critically identifying and responding to reasoning, and evidentiary and logical errors in argumentation is necessary. Respectful discourse is essential for effective communication. Rhetorical elaborations, such as references to literature, can enliven articles when designed to highlight the issues (Looi et al., 2020).

However, debate articles may not so much present considered arguments, but rather seek primarily to either contradict, without argumentative justification, or, alternatively, address an exaggerated, inaccurate caricature in the form of a straw-man or hollow-man construction (Looi et al., 2020).These responses can been accompanied by ad hominem attacks, as well as the failure to respond to arguments raised (Looi et al., 2020). Debate articles can also use unexplained, ill-defined terminology as well as fail to proffer a comprehensible argument to which a reasoned response could be made, as in the following sentence where none of the terms used were defined previously, and it is therefore not clear what the authors are saying, for example, ‘The total number of hospital beds is an unreliable indicator for mental health planning due to non-commensurability bias, terminological variability, ecological fallacy, risk of surrogation and objectification’ (Rosen et al., 2020).

While clinical academics may be well equipped to respond, less experienced authors and early career trainees/psychiatrists may be deterred should they become subject to such tactics, which are potentially off-putting and, at worst, may discourage scientific debate.

Debates are predicated on reasoned, evidence-based logical argumentation and mindfulness that ‘… it is easy for scientists to personalise their results and take offence to criticism … adding respect to criticism keeps the focus on the science and not the scientist’ (Foegeding, 2017).