There was a story about two chemists, I might have some minor details wrong, but that shouldn't hurt this anecdote because something like this happened back when chemistry was still raw and new. The going wisdom was based on the assumption that the atoms in a molecule were the only thing that determined its properties. These two scientists were having trouble replicating each others results when working with a molecule of 2 Carbon, 2 Nitrogen, 2 Oxygen and 1 Mercury atoms.

One describe it as inert and the other as explosive. Neither bothered to include synthesis steps in their papers and each thought the other was wrong. Rather than insult they swapped more and more information until eventually each confirmed that we dealing with a molecule with identical parts, but different properties.

They had discovered that molecules have structure. One arrangement was Mercury Fulminate an unstable explosive used in primers and detonators today and the other was really inert and not of interest, to me at least.

Any scientist who argues with the concept of "disagreement based on evidence" is arguing a foundation of science. They should be looking for evidence of reasons for that disagreement instead of quibbling over personal attacks and defense.