Abstract
Scientific disagreements are an important catalyst for scientific progress. But
what happens when scientists disagree amidst times of crisis, when we need quick
yet reliable policy guidance? In this paper we provide a normative account for how
scientists facing disagreement in the context of ‘fast science’ should respond, and
how policy makers should evaluate such disagreement. Starting from an
argumentative, pragma-dialectic account of scientific controversies, we argue for the
importance of ‘higher-order evidence’ (HOE) and we specify desiderata for
scientifically relevant HOE. We use our account to analyze the controversy about
the aerosol transmission of COVID-19.