The authority of a thousand is not worth as much as the humble reasoning of a single individual

From Seeking the Truth When the Consensus Is against You by Abraham Loeb. With a wonderful illustration of Galileo before the Inquisition.

Click to enlarge.

Loeb's point is that the authority of consensus opinion is flimsy. He provides two examples where he had a physics hypothesis which was initially roundly rejected by those of the consensus opinion. Rejected to the point of refusing to even investigate the hypothesis. And yet, when investigated, it was discovered that the hypotheses were correct and the received consensus opinion wrong.

Loeb observes:

At the first annual conference of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative, a philosopher concluded his talk by stating that “conversations with some prominent theoretical physicists led me to conclude that if the physics community agrees on a research program for over a decade, then it must be correct.” I realized that his conclusion must have been inspired by a scientific culture in which authority sets the tone. My personal experience has taught me otherwise.

Appeal to Authority is one of the more common informal fallacies. It is not necessarily wrong, but it has no weight in proving what is right. For epistemic purposes, all arguments should be substantiated on their own merits, not simply accepted based on the opinion of an "expert." See the work of Philip Tetlock regarding the fallibility of experts.

Loeb ends with:

As Galileo reasoned after looking through his telescope, “in the sciences, the authority of a thousand is not worth as much as the humble reasoning of a single individual.” To which I would add the footnote that sometimes Mother Nature is kinder to innovative ideas than people are.

I would strengthen that somewhat - A person with coherent reasoning and robust supporting data is more powerful than consensus opinion.