While dissent is key to successful science, it is not always beneficial. By requiring scientists to respond to objections, epistemically detrimental dissent (EDD) consumes resources that could be better devoted to furthering scientific discovery. Moreover, bad-faith dissent can create a chilling effect on certain lines of inquiry and make settled controversies seem open to debate. Such dissent results in harm to scientific progress and the public policy that depends on this science. Biddle and Leuschner propose four criteria that draw on inductive risk as a method for separating this EDD from beneficial dissent while de Melo-Martín and Intemann reject this approach for failing to capture paradigmatic instances of EDD. Against de Melo-Martín and Intemann’s objections, I propose the inductive risk account can be saved and strengthened through the following modifications: (1) removing the requirement that the four conditions of EDD be jointly satisfied, (2) requiring that each criterion be measured as a matter of degree rather than as a binary, and (3) requiring that the four criteria are measured holistically. These modifications not only mitigate the criticisms but produce five benefits over Biddle and Leuschner’s account, including: (1) capturing paradigmatic instances of EDD, (2) reflecting the degree to which an instance of EDD is problematic, (3) capturing the interactions between criteria, (4) avoiding legitimizing inappropriate dissent, and (5) reflecting changes to the epistemic standing of dissent. As such, I argue that the modified IndRA provides a powerful tool for identifying EDD and strengthening science.

虽然异议是科学成功的关键，但它并不总是有益的。通过要求科学家对异议做出回应，认知上有害的异议 (EDD) 消耗了本可以更好地用于进一步科学发现的资源。此外，恶意的异议可能会对某些调查产生寒蝉效应，并使已解决的争议看起来可以进行辩论。这种异议会损害科学进步和依赖该科学的公共政策。 Biddle 和 Leuschner 提出了四个标准，利用归纳风险作为将 EDD 与有益异议区分开的方法，而 de Melo-Martín 和 Intemann 拒绝这种方法，因为它未能捕获 EDD 的范例实例。针对 de Melo-Martín 和 Intemann 的反对意见，我建议可以通过以下修改来保存和加强归纳风险账户：（1）取消同时满足 EDD 四个条件的要求，（2）要求对每个标准进行测量作为程度问题而不是二元问题，(3) 要求对四个标准进行整体衡量。这些修改不仅减轻了批评，而且比 Biddle 和 Leuschner 的说法产生了五个好处，包括：(1) 捕获 EDD 的范例实例，(2) 反映 EDD 实例有问题的程度，(3) 捕获 EDD 实例之间的相互作用标准，（4）避免使不适当的异议合法化，以及（5）反映异议认知地位的变化。因此，我认为修改后的 IndRA 为识别 EDD 和加强科学提供了强大的工具。