It does seem the herd rules.

An antelope running with the herd can't just stop and scratch its ear.

Yet some little creature in the forest has to listen for every rustle and consider every flash in the peripheral vision. The reason is safety in awareness, rather than safety in numbers.

So it would seem the very first step is finding a way to step back from the crowd and try to see the bigger picture. Generals run armies, while specialist is one rank above private.

Yet our world is currently in awe of the specialists, because we are at this crest of technological progress, but the resulting global Tower of Babel is starting to become unstable.

It seems a waste of time to try debating religious, political, or economic issues, since such ground level fields involve far larger herds than can be turned by logic and only recognize forces greater than they.

So it would seem the more rarified fields, of the sciences, would be a place to first start examine the basic fallacies built into their models. Yet even there, authority rules and anyone arguing against convention is a crank and crackpot.

One very basic point involves our current cosmological model, commonly referred to as Big Bang Theory.

Now there are a number of enormous patches already applied to it, Inlfation, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, where observation didn't match prediction, but there was too much institutional momentum to consider it falsified, so patches were constructed.

There is an original patch, that has become so normalized, it isn't even noticed.

When it was first realized that cosmic redshift increases proportional to distance in all direction, it created the quandary that either this redshift is an optical effect, or we are at the center of the universe.

Since the light wasn't otherwise disturbed and thus "tired," the solution agreed upon was that space itself must be expanding, because "spacetime!"

Now it should have been apparent this didn't work either, but somehow it slipped through.

The basis for the Math of General Relativity is the speed of light is measured as a constant in any frame, so if space were to relativistically expand, the speed of light would have to increase, in order to remain constant, but this would negate explaining redshift.

Instead, two metrics are being derived from the same light. One based on the speed and one based on the spectrum.

If the speed were being treated as the numerator, it would be a "tired light" theory, but since it's an "expanding space" theory, the speed is still the explicit denominator. The ruler against which this expansion is measured. As Einstein said, "Space is what you measure with a ruler."

Safe to say, I've run this point by a fair number of people in and associated with cosmology and while it is universally dismissed, not one actually refutes it.

There are a fair number of other conventions on which current academia assumes sacrosanct, but will eventually require more consideration, but I think this is one of the more clear examples of how even those in the sciences will cover their eyes and ears, when the structure is questioned.

On a further note, one way light does redshift over distance alone, is as multi spectrum "packets," as the higher frequencies dissipate faster, but that would mean we are sampling a wave front, not seeing individual photons, having traveled billions of lightyears, which would also seriously upset convention.