It's not so much different non-interacting schools defined by points of view on some question, it's that the same problems have come up in different places in philosophy and cosmology under various guises, and get hashed out in similar fashion in different places. The same families of responses get proposed and in none of the communities is there a decisive settlement of which principles to use. Eventually thee different literatures get connected together, you can chart out the connections with this bibliography.

Compare studies of publication bias: in many disciplines you get papers finding publication bias in the discipline, a standard back-and-forth takes place in the discipline's journals, similar to ones that had taken place in other fields.

First, the cited paper is from 1994, and was updated 18 years later only to commemorate the Mayan calendar doomsday. Katja's thesis does indeed cite this paper, so the red flag of a diseased discipline can be safely lowered.

Second, it is the favorite hobby of many physicists to spot some place in another field (biology, sociology etc.) where some concept from physics (percolation, self-organized criticality etc.) can be applied, and rush there without reading any of the already existing literature. This habit of physicists can be annoying even in itself for the practitioners of the given field. But then another physicists comes by, finds that the physicists did not properly cite the literature, and deems the field a diseased discipline? Ouch, that must be painful to hear. :)