Strategic science skeptics criticize scientific claims solely to promote non-epistemic goals. I will analyze and debunk a philosophically neglected argument exploited by strategic science skeptics: the argument from disagreement. The core of this argument is that one should lower one’s confidence in a scientific claim when having learned that there is a scientific disagreement about this claim. I will develop a (Bayesian) Justificatory Account of Multiple Testimony to provide a normative characterization of how learning about agreements and disagreements is connected to confirming and disconfirming scientific claims. I will use this account to debunk the argument from disagreement.