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.
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.