In science we respect the consensus of experts, and rely on the long chain of understanding that comes before us. We also challenge the consensus, and find new ways of understanding. Both acceptance and challenge fo the consensus.
I agree entirely. It is to be done cautiously, after validating your intuition with a great deal of planning and effort.
Much of the work we’ve done on Adam fits this pattern too, though I certainly don’t compare myself to Avi.
In my view, it is a bit like selling new gadgets. For example, if you have this completely new product that cleans floors then you are going to explain how it performs better than the standard vacuum cleaner that people already have. The same for theories. If you want to convince scientists that your theory is correct then you have to compare it to the theory that most scientists are already using.
A consensus is not “you have to believe this”. Rather, it’s “you have to address this”.