A strong argument for steering clear of eccentric outliers, and backing the rump consensus.
Not at all. It isn't a question of deciding between only one of two things, viz. either to accept or reject based on consensus views. One can hold judgement in abeyance and consider the point, for the moment, moot or undecided, pending more evidence or testing.
Quite a lot of major breakthroughs in science and invention came about when a single or at most a few people weren't concerned either way with consensus: they just looked at a phenomenon and said to themselves: "If such-and-such were true (or false) what would the implication be?".
Like Ignaz Semmelweis, who asked himself: "what if disease can be spread by something on the hands that is invisible to the human eye?" He thought about it and enacted his hand-washing regime to test it, and, as we now know and have known for a long time, he was right. That "something", we now know, was the bacterium for puerperal fever.
He might have turned out to be wrong, which is why he tested it. It takes a very special kind of bigotry to reject something out of hand, and continue rejecting it, even when one is, like Semmelweiss, achieving results. The consensus, immediately formed at the time of his conjecture, was wrong. But would physicians admit it? Would they bloody hell, even in the face of evidence. Why? Because surgeons in particular sniffed their noses at the idea that lofty personages like themselves should need to wash their hands between handling cadavers and dealing with pregnant mothers.
It's quite possible that consensus opinion has been wrong at least as often as it has been right. That's not the problem: what is, is when people won't even listen to countervailing arguments, opinions, even supporting evidence based mainly on their fear of what colleagues might think. Might as well talk to a brick wall.
What I'm reiterating is that whenever one hears scientists say: "that can't be right and we'll oppose it", one needs to spend a little time personally examining any evidence to the contrary rather than automatically agreeing with them.
Resorting to consensus is the laziest defence against new and/or different ideas. It absolves one from the inclination to keep an open mind merely because other people say something is so. One has the crowd to back one up, and can feel safe without actually having to do the work finding and evaluating contrary evidence. If, as a result, one reaches a conclusion either in agreement or disagreement with consensus, one has at least done one's due diligence.
That is the problem with the current scientific atmosphere. Scientists have become lazy and want to save themselves from effort, and besides, why buck the trend when it can lead to opprobrium and possible censure, even dismissal from one's job? Why not just take the grant money and run?
I find it dismaying that we live in times where much dissent is
automatically equated with error. It's almost as if science is viewed as unchangeable and immutable truth, and in such a milieu, it's likely to stagnate.
I've done my due diligence in a number of different areas. Sometimes I tend to agree with consensus, sometimes not, and sometimes remain neutral pending further evidence. Does one do one's due diligence? Or does one take the easy route and automatically agree with consensus? To those who routinely do the latter, I say
Shame on you.