I read this as far less about noise and its cancellation than about problem-solving, and in particular DYOR: do your own research.
There is a reason we rely on experts, a large part of which is that good experimental design, execution, sampling of test subjects, and interpretation is hard. That's not to say it's impossible, and it's not that conventional wisdom / received understanding isn't often wrong (and there's nothing quite so profound an impediment to discovery of truth than solidly-embedded wrong understandings, especially at the cultural level). But at a starting point at least checking to see if what "everyone" believes, claims, and/or recommends is of value is a reasonable possibility to verify or refute early in a search.
There's also the realisation that reasoning through a problem is almost always far less useful than actually trying the damned thing, which is to say experiment and empirical testing. This isn't completely contradictory to what I'd written above, as all the impediments to good experimentation apply many-fold to good Gedankenexperimenten, or thought experiments. A key difference between the two is that an actual experiment will tend to reveal your sloppy reasoning, rationale, and/or method in fairly short order, whilst thought experiments can lead you down the garden path. Kant critiqued pure reason for ... reasons.
And for all that ... the author did learn something, and did realise their mistakes, and probably learned a bit more in the process than if they'd simply followed the initial consensus advice. But a different and perhaps more methodological approach could have arrived there sooner.
There is a reason we rely on experts, a large part of which is that good experimental design, execution, sampling of test subjects, and interpretation is hard. That's not to say it's impossible, and it's not that conventional wisdom / received understanding isn't often wrong (and there's nothing quite so profound an impediment to discovery of truth than solidly-embedded wrong understandings, especially at the cultural level). But at a starting point at least checking to see if what "everyone" believes, claims, and/or recommends is of value is a reasonable possibility to verify or refute early in a search.
There's also the realisation that reasoning through a problem is almost always far less useful than actually trying the damned thing, which is to say experiment and empirical testing. This isn't completely contradictory to what I'd written above, as all the impediments to good experimentation apply many-fold to good Gedankenexperimenten, or thought experiments. A key difference between the two is that an actual experiment will tend to reveal your sloppy reasoning, rationale, and/or method in fairly short order, whilst thought experiments can lead you down the garden path. Kant critiqued pure reason for ... reasons.
And for all that ... the author did learn something, and did realise their mistakes, and probably learned a bit more in the process than if they'd simply followed the initial consensus advice. But a different and perhaps more methodological approach could have arrived there sooner.