I agree, that being interested in something doesn't mean you support it, but I believe that most of the things I listed (though probably not all) are things that you do support.
I probably shouldn't list them as "contrarian" though. What I think of as "contrarian" is probably not just what is contrary to the "mainstream" (of whatever sort), but rather a position that is held and defended specifically because it is contrary. Slate specializes in this sort of essay, playing the Devil's advocate, partially out of sympathy for the view, but also partly just out of the intrinsic interest in defending an unpopular position. Contrarianism of this sort is very interesting, but also gets annoying fast (see Christopher Hitchens and John Tierney for examples of that sort, though they still produce interesting things far more often than, say, David Brooks).
Also, I think just about all scientists have to be contrarian in some sense about something - that's how you make your contribution. You just have to do it well, and actually support your case in ways that are interesting and make sense, even if they're not strong enough to overturn the consensus.
And even outside your own field there are probably some cases where there's good ground to be contrarian, because of some lack of evidence for the mainstream position. For instance, Matt takes the contrarian view that there is probably life on both Venus and Mars. I think his case for Venus is pretty interesting (basically, the huge amount of H2SO4 in the atmosphere there should be just as much a giveaway as the huge amount of O2 in the atmosphere on earth - both compounds are so unstable that you need some out-of-balance chemical reaction to be producing it, and life is a natural candidate), though I don't know about Mars. Of course, also, in both cases, there are a significant number of people in the relevant community (NASA scientists) who do hold the contrarian position.
no subject
I probably shouldn't list them as "contrarian" though. What I think of as "contrarian" is probably not just what is contrary to the "mainstream" (of whatever sort), but rather a position that is held and defended specifically because it is contrary. Slate specializes in this sort of essay, playing the Devil's advocate, partially out of sympathy for the view, but also partly just out of the intrinsic interest in defending an unpopular position. Contrarianism of this sort is very interesting, but also gets annoying fast (see Christopher Hitchens and John Tierney for examples of that sort, though they still produce interesting things far more often than, say, David Brooks).
Also, I think just about all scientists have to be contrarian in some sense about something - that's how you make your contribution. You just have to do it well, and actually support your case in ways that are interesting and make sense, even if they're not strong enough to overturn the consensus.
And even outside your own field there are probably some cases where there's good ground to be contrarian, because of some lack of evidence for the mainstream position. For instance, Matt takes the contrarian view that there is probably life on both Venus and Mars. I think his case for Venus is pretty interesting (basically, the huge amount of H2SO4 in the atmosphere there should be just as much a giveaway as the huge amount of O2 in the atmosphere on earth - both compounds are so unstable that you need some out-of-balance chemical reaction to be producing it, and life is a natural candidate), though I don't know about Mars. Of course, also, in both cases, there are a significant number of people in the relevant community (NASA scientists) who do hold the contrarian position.