As scientists, we have to hold ourselves to a standard that requires us to reach a consensus about which model is right, and then to move on to other questions.
This is an example Goodhart's law. Real sciences of course ultimately reach a consensus around the truth, but trying for consensus for the sake of consensus is likely to result in a consensus around a false belief being reached.
but trying for consensus for the sake of consensus
I think the aim is not consensus, but consistency. If two camps hold irreconcilable views, one of them is wrong and it's highly useful to know which one. The fact that both views have some domains where they seem to work better than the other is not a good excuse.
Another month, another rationality quotes thread. The rules are: