Given the explosion in the number of journals and the impossibility of effective peer review, being published in a journal does not mean what it used to. This is part of the material drivers for the replication crisis (journals can no longer effectively gatekeep scientific validity), but it also reflects something real about the practice of science: little social cliques come up with pet theories and, over time, "fight" with these theories on epistemic common ground. The successful ones, we'd like to think, are the ones that last the most rounds in the fight, but that probably only holds in the long run. Contradiction, in itself, is normal (and was before!)