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.
This assumes a very Kuhnian way of looking at science, and in my opinion, a false way of looking at science.
The consensus forms around questions slowly as they are answered. For open questions, there is no consensus on them yet... these are the ones that make for valid, promising research projects. Researching something there is already a strong consensus on is not science, that's crackpottery.
Of course, there is gray area. You might research something that there is already a weak consensus on, and then you are not a crackpot just a contrarian. And occasionally (albeit very rarely) that type of thing works out. But it is certainly not the norm in how science progresses. That would be an abberation.
no subject
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.
This assumes a very Kuhnian way of looking at science, and in my opinion, a false way of looking at science.
The consensus forms around questions slowly as they are answered. For open questions, there is no consensus on them yet... these are the ones that make for valid, promising research projects. Researching something there is already a strong consensus on is not science, that's crackpottery.
Of course, there is gray area. You might research something that there is already a weak consensus on, and then you are not a crackpot just a contrarian. And occasionally (albeit very rarely) that type of thing works out. But it is certainly not the norm in how science progresses. That would be an abberation.