[Certhas]

What reason do you have to believe that your own conclusion will be better?

The causal set folks are already outsiders that go against the broad consensus of HEP-Th. I grew up scientifically in an environment that was actively challenging mainstream consensus. Sometimes correctly (e.g. low energy susy), sometimes not. If those folk can't find something redeeming in what you do you should stop and listen.

Also, yes scientific consensus at the cutting edge changes over time. That's the nature of science. But I challenge you to find a single example where the consensus was "there is nothing of substance here" and it turned out to be wrong. Not all forms of challenging consensus are equivalent.

At the end of the day though, this is HEP. Itt doesn't matter. Worst that can happen is that you waste your time learning some neat math.

[thewanderer1983]

Scientific consensus rarely has a large body of people who truly dived into the research. Most are very busy with their own research and lives. At worst they just repeat views they hear from colleagues they respect, and at best they will do a minor survey. Therefore it's questionable if more than a handful of people truly have any valuable input to that consensus. What you end up with is truth by authority which is antithetical to the scientific method and ethos of scientific inquiry.

[thewanderer1983]

https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

It just popped up on HN. I suggest giving it a read.

[thewanderer1983]

I have a question for you. How many scientists does it take for consensus, that we should determine science is settled? Or is it always open for inquiry?