Most people have probably heard at least one recorded rap battle. Rappers take turns releasing songs badmouthing each other.

Scientists are no different.

If you read enough papers, you start to observe the scientists’ equivalent of rap battles. Scientist A writes a paper about a theory or an experiment, then Scientist B writes a paper refuting it, then Scientist A writes a paper rebutting Scientist B, and so forth. They’re making scientific arguments, of course, but some of the language makes these “battles” start to look personal.

I suspect part of that appearance is due to the critique of a specific paper, not necessarily of a generalized concept. While that exists also — the “I am right and everyone else is wrong” argument — it always seems to come across as personal when a specific author or team of authors is criticized.