[hef19898]

That doesn't make anti consensus opinion right by definition. In case I am not part of the experts in any given field, I have not ground to stand on to challenge that consensus. And looking back at history, the scientific consensus is changing all the time. Quite often with the obsolete one staying on as a pop cultural trope.

[dylan604]

>I have not ground to stand on to challenge that consensus.

Good thing Copernicus didn't follow this line of thinking. Anytime someone comes up against group think, there is always the resistance against it. It's only natural. Being willing to listen to the unpopular opinion to at least evaluate it before dismissing it out of hand is what separates science. It is the responsibility of the "dissident" to persuade and show evidence. People should not switch beliefs willy-nilly.

[afthonos]

Copernicus was an expert. Those who have spent years laboring to understand a subject do occasionally ignore the bright upstart who has mastered the field and then proves them wrong. But that doesn’t oblige them to credit ignorance as serious argument in the name of “being willing to listen to unpopular opinion”.

And this isn’t about credentialism either. You can tell the lion by his claw; a knowledgeable non-credentialed expert will not be dismissed as easily.

[p_l]

Except Copernicus was an expert in the field and thus his repudiation of established model had a basis to stand on including thorough work to support his claim.