If overturning established ideas is as easy for you as you seem to portray it, you should enter into a career in science. Scientists who can prove that existing paradigms are wrong, or incomplete, are treated as rock-stars, not pariahs. Virtually every scientific figure you have ever read about overturned some old false knowledge.
However, the reason there aren't more rock-stars like that is because when you actually have to inject yourself into the debate and have your own ideas exposed to the same level of skepticism, you often find that your own conclusions are as flawed as the ones you are critiquing.
Not saying science has all the answers. Not saying currently held beliefs won't be overturned. Not even saying that you might not be right about some of the things you are skeptical about. But I have seen a lot of people believe they know better about things of a scientific nature who have absolutely no idea about which they speak. As an outsider to think that something is easier than it is, and that you know more than you really know. It is not unreasonable to let the people whose life is devoted to the work, do their work. When you question smart people's life work, it is incredibly reasonable to apply some of the same skepticism you are applying to them to yourself.
"Scientists who can prove that existing paradigms are wrong, or incomplete, are treated as rock-stars, not pariahs."
I think people like to tell themselves this, but rarely is it actually true. If that's how humans actually worked then Michael Moore would have been canonized as a saint for showing that the Iraq war was a mistake.
At best the person who gets the credit is the person who used their clout to convince people that the old paradigm was wrong, not the person who actually did the analysis. And more commonly people begrudgingly accept the new model and no one gets credit, and even then they often don't accept the new model for dozens (or hundreds) of years after the evidence is in.
However, the reason there aren't more rock-stars like that is because when you actually have to inject yourself into the debate and have your own ideas exposed to the same level of skepticism, you often find that your own conclusions are as flawed as the ones you are critiquing.
Not saying science has all the answers. Not saying currently held beliefs won't be overturned. Not even saying that you might not be right about some of the things you are skeptical about. But I have seen a lot of people believe they know better about things of a scientific nature who have absolutely no idea about which they speak. As an outsider to think that something is easier than it is, and that you know more than you really know. It is not unreasonable to let the people whose life is devoted to the work, do their work. When you question smart people's life work, it is incredibly reasonable to apply some of the same skepticism you are applying to them to yourself.