> We at LPPFusion have been applying that knowledge concretely to the development of a cheap, clean and unlimited source of energy that can entirely replace fossil fuels starting in this decade.

And I doubt that the website (iai.tv), that I have never head of, is a source that can be trusted.

I did not invest.

Science doesn't advance by consensus. It advances by constructing models and comparing their predictions with observations. As Einstein famously remarked when someone mentioned to him that a hundred scientists had signed a letter saying they were doubtful of his theory of relativity: "If the theory were wrong, one would have been enough." We don't believe our best current theories because there is a consensus. We believe them because they have made accurate predictions that have been confirmed by experimental data to many decimal places.

No, not so much. That is scientific method.

Science is paradigmatic. The advancement of science only occurs when the current science paradigm is toppled. Currently, ΛCDM Theory is the paradigm. And it is not when it is discovered that CDM does not exist and the Universe is not expanding when the paradigm topples. Because that may have already happened... JWST may have completed this task.

A decent example of the resilience of paradigms is the luminiferous ether. Michelson published the results of his experiment in 1881. Maybe there were some that immediately realized the significance, but the paradigm remained through the ether crisis, and even after Einstein published Special Relativity in 1905, and deep, deep into the 20th Century and arguably shallowly into the first few years of 21st Century.

Science paradigms are sticky and resilient, even when they are completely wrong.

So it will take decades after the discovery that CDM doesn't exist before most scientists are finally on the same page and the paradigm is finally toppled. Only then, after being wrong for maybe as long as 200 years and most have moved on away from the previous paradigm that Science legitimately advances.

There are plenty of examples where science got it wrong. Were it took years, even decades to get enough people to listen.*

That's not the way science is supposed to work. Politics? Yes. But not science.

I trust you can do the math from here.

* And when the tides turn, these not even an acknowledgement, let alone an apology. Scientists shouldn't not be turning in their graves for lacking an apology. That level of arrogance is also not healthy and proper Science.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13618460-600-vatican-...

Shouldn’t the burden of proof be placed on the individual rather than the group?

Yes, but don't cover your ears and yell "burden of proooooof" so loudly that you can't hear them out.

That's two things he's bent to support his position within the first two paragraphs of this piece. Right out of the gate he's shown that he can't be trusted with data.

Your interlocutors have already stipulated that on occasion, the scientific establishment has been wrong, and the cranks have been right.

Their point is that this is almost never the case. There are and have been cranks who dispute the scientific consensus on almost every point since the scientific method was first developed.

Are you also suggesting we should believe the anti-vaxxers who still back Andrew Wakefield's paper?

Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say climate change isn't real?

Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say the earth is flat?

Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say that our current trees aren't "really" trees, and all the "real", giant, trees were killed long ago? [0]

All of these are cranks who disagree with the established scientific consensus—sometimes in bizarre but harmless ways, sometimes in extremely damaging and disturbing ones. If your point is genuinely "we should listen to cranks because they have a good track record", why not them, too? Why not all of them?

Or is there, in fact, something specific about this one that makes you think it's got something going for it besides "they might be actually super smart and seeing something the rest of us are missing"? If so, maybe lead with that, instead?

[0] https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees

personally i dont think big bang theory deserves to be held up to same regard as classical and quantum mechanics, electro and thermodynamics, and relativity. and i dont think questioning it is anywhere close to flat earthism or creationism. still i happen to believe it is the currently best supported model, albeit one with plenty of questions to answer

So…

anyways, the threshold is likely when the hypothesis becomes convincing enough to a sufficient proportion or number of experts in the field

Are you being obtuse?