It's more likely that the Church is right about heliocentrism being wrong. They do after all, have more people on their side.

In my opinion this is weak reasoning and it only serves to allow people to cement their minority opinions more. Regardless of whether they're correct or not.

Logical fallacy, straw man argument.

Well, unless rat87 clarifies their argument about why it is they think the colleagues are more likely to be correct this is the best we can do.

There's no inherent reason the colleagues are more likely to be correct.

The authoritarian left today is not about facts or reality or science. it is about "My Personal Truth", majoritarianism, and tribal dogma

This is the culture / ideology that has taken over a large part of the "news" industry

It is very much regressive and has all the same kind of tribal dogma that fueled rhetoric that aligns nicely with those dark times where scientists where executed for daring to refute the dogma of the majority

While we are not physically executing people today, cancel culture is emotionally, socially, and virtually executing anyone that dares to disagree with their tribe

Oh yes, your character judged by your peers, a la Cultural Revolution. Wonderful.

Sure would be terrible if judging professionals by the opinions of their peers was how we determined the legitimacy of their claims.

Down with peer-reviewed journals! We should just take scientists on their word that they're operating professionally!

There's a big reproducibility crisis in science as a result of this "you pat my back, I'll pat your back" mentality. Peer review is not immune to groupthink.

Even worse than that, there's straight up research fraud from labs at big universities. Fraud that slips through peer review and then the journals and reviewers get out the pitchforks when it's pointed out.

https://forbetterscience.com/

Thanks for teaching me that a paper rejected implies a rejection of your character as OP implied.The more you learn.

Experiments can be reproduced as opposed to sources. Mutual references to each other did cause a lot of problems in science.

Peer review is not about judging a person / scientists charter, political opinions, or anything about them as a person.

Well at least that is not what is SUPPOSE to do.

Peer review is about reviewing the science, not the charter of the scientists.

science has a real problem today because it is becoming less about the raw science and more about who is doing the science and if they have the "correct" political or other opinions

Kinda like the editor(s), who are doing the job of an editor.