Approaches, values and perceptions in invasion science are highly dynamic, and like in other disciplines, views among different people can be somewhat divergent. This has led to debate in the field specifically surrounding the core themes relating to values, management, impacts, and terminology. Considering these debates, we surveyed the views of 698 scientists and practitioners to assess levels of polarization (opposing views) on core and contentious invasion science topics. Our results indicate that although there are generally high levels of consensus in the field, there are still some areas of polarization. Relating to values, there was high polarization regarding claims of invasive species denialism, if invasive species contribute to biodiversity, and, how biodiversity reporting should be conducted. Linking to management there were polarized views on banning the commercial use of beneficial invasive species, the extent to which stakeholders’ perceptions should influence management, if invasive species utilization alone is an appropriate control strategy, and, whether the eradication of invasive plants is possible. For impacts, there was high polarization concerning whether invasive species drive, or are a side effect of degradation, and, if invasive species benefits are understated. For terminology, polarized views related to defining invasive species based only on spread, if labelling species as invasive in their native ranges, and, if language used is too xenophobic. Factor and regression analysis revealed that views were particularly divergent between people working on different invasive taxa (plants and mammals) and in different disciplines (especially between biologists and social scientists), between academics and practitioners, and between world regions (especially between Africa and the Global North). Unlike in other studies, age and gender had a limited influence on response patterns. We highlight that better integration globally and between disciplines, taxa and sectors (e.g., academic vs. practitioners), could help build broader understanding and consensus in the field.