Why? If one is issuing mandates from a position of authority, I agree that following what one imposes on others is essential, but in intellectual discussion one should be free to argue a position and its opposite the next minute. Anything less is downright dangerous for the group and society as a whole. We can't depend on the half-dozen cranks that actually live their lives swimming against the tide to argue for everything that is truly different, nor should we trust their arguments just because they turn their crackpot theories into practice.
Why? If one is issuing mandates from a position of authority, I agree that following what one imposes on others is essential, but in intellectual discussion one should be free to argue a position and its opposite the next minute. Anything less is downright dangerous for the group and society as a whole. We can't depend on the half-dozen cranks that actually live their lives swimming against the tide to argue for everything that is truly different, nor should we trust their arguments just because they turn their crackpot theories into practice.