&gt;<i>Science is about finding truth. Truth doesn&#x27;t give shit what anybody thinks.</i><p>Truth is an abstract concept. You can&#x27;t get hold of &quot;truth&quot; in raw form. Consensus is the only thing that validates a statement, and scientific consensus, that is consensus among experts following (each perhaps imperfectly) the scientific method, is the only thing that validates a scientific statement.<p>Even direct experience is not some failsafe -- a single person might just be misinterpreting, lacking skills and knowledge to understand what you see, or plain delusional (e.g. Wilhelm Reich and orgone or Linus Pauling and vitamin C).<p>&gt;<i>Scientific consensus is just educational and political tool. Get everybody on the same page. But it&#x27;s pretty detached from the actual process of science itself.</i><p>Not according to any philosophy or practice of science that I know of.<p>&gt;<i>Questioning established consensus has been scientifically very valuable in the history.</i><p>Sure, but only to establish a new consensus, not to say that &quot;my sole opinion, that remains my sole opinion, is more valid than the rest of the scientific world&#x27;s&quot;.