[Kbelicius]

> That's kind of funny, because throughout history the people who were very critical of the scientific consensus (especially those who maintained this position even after lifting themselves up from a lower social status) are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right and either revolutionized that field or had an amazing insight that was a missing puzzle piece.

You are saying that on average, those going against scientific consensus are more often right than they are wrong? That sound like a load of bullshit.

[sebow]

I expressed myself poorly because my wording gives room to implied causality.The historical figures did not make revolutionary insights or reshaped human history >because< they were going against the scientific consensus (let's say accepted narrative,thought,etc).Their own brilliance,insights [often gained through isolation by not adhering to a consensus] are the reason they were right, not because of their arrogance.That arrogance comes as a second nature due to the assumed knowledge one has about the domain to make contradictory statements against the consensus.

And quantifying my statement is hard if you assume causality and you don't make distinction between levels of "radical thinking".Because i can give you 5-10 well-known historical figures who fit my description and make me look right, and you can say "here are 10000 conspiracy nuts from YT who make you look wrong".What I meant by 'are the ones who, on average, turned out to be right[...]' is that the more radical/higher level your thinking is, the better chances you are to be right if you made your case for them(again, I mentioned that those people do not change their stance with time,social status,environment).

Accepting scientific consensus >because< it is the consensus and upholding it as an orthodoxy is precisely why there's stagnation in many if not all the fields.And yes, the more radical,incorporating,exploratory you are in your thinking, the higher chances you probably have in being "right", assuming you are actually creating a superset of a scientific domain(i.e innovating) and not merely "go against the wave".To take my point home: 5000 flat earthers from YouTube who are undeniable wrong make my average "wrong" because they are going against the current scientific consensus.Is their thinking radical or incorporates existing knowledge into something more profound?Do they change the thinking about world, is it shockingly different?No, they're just saying the negation of a proposition, mostly based on 'loads of bullshit' without substance or regard to the consensus.We used to think the earth was flat.This is different from, say, "Here is a conjecture which lies at the limits of current knowledge about X[say gravity, or anything].You're all wrong at thinking about X/Y/Z in terms of A, my insight (often new) is better and vastly different."

The main issue here is that from a known understanding, a newer,different idea might seem wrong.It's the duty of the "contrarian" to prove his case.If one stays true to his motives and is not a hack it will serve them well.

[Shaanie]

Your original comment is simply poor. A better way to phrase it would be something like "a lot of scientific breakthroughs came from people who fought against the concensus" and leave it at that.

[kenjackson]

Science is generally accepting of new ideas. Probably moreso than any other human activity.