Why would it be worse to cite opposing research, labeling it as “debunked” on a whim, than to never acknowledge it?
I would think it’s strictly better, while still bad. It’s more informative to a skeptical reader, who now has a grapple point to search the other view.
Because the former makes a false claim and the latter doesn’t necessarily. Of course, if the latter happens in a context of “the academic consensus is X” and then ignores opposing studies, that’s also a false claim. But if the latter happens in a context of “here is an argument for X” then it’s not.
Why would it be worse to cite opposing research, labeling it as “debunked” on a whim, than to never acknowledge it?
I would think it’s strictly better, while still bad. It’s more informative to a skeptical reader, who now has a grapple point to search the other view.
Because the former makes a false claim and the latter doesn’t necessarily. Of course, if the latter happens in a context of “the academic consensus is X” and then ignores opposing studies, that’s also a false claim. But if the latter happens in a context of “here is an argument for X” then it’s not.
If you’ve never acknowledged that other study, there is a possibility that you’ll consider it objectively once introduced to it.