People seem to be really bad at the distinction between:
“everyone is entitled to their own opinion”
and
“everyone has the right to a massive audience for their opinion regardless of that opinion-holder’s expertise or what the relevant evidence base suggests about that opinion.”
Feel free to believe the earth is flat, the Doppler effect is caused by tiny leprechauns physically dampening or resonating waves by hand, or that the consumption of human brains doesn't cause kuru on whatever grounds you find compelling (NB: I would discourage genuinely believing any of these).
You aren’t then justified in demanding that your manifesto be publicized everywhere for all to behold the splendor of your iconoclastic brilliance simply because you deigned to be a contrarian.
I would also add that contrarianism, i.e., choosing to believe something because it’s not what the majority believes, is no more demonstrative of critical thinking faculties than choosing to believe something because it’s what the majority believes.
In someone's idea of a perfect world, we might all individually have the time and stamina to work from a series of axioms to interrogate every premise about the way our world works critically and assess them rigorously.
Deferring to genuine expertise is fine for the simple reason that all else being equal, experts are more likely to be right about questions within the scope of their expertise than non-experts, even if sometimes the experts get it wrong when non-experts get it right.
