The issue is that you seem to not be able to abstract the fact that you may very well find yourself on the "wrong" side of the debate at one point in time.

When that happens, you desperately need channels to communicate what's true and break through so we get a better world to live in.

And in fact, this has been the case for many rights we today hold as self-evident such as abolishment of slavery and the equality of the sexes.

This is not a debate about science, it's a meta-debate about science and a debate about philosophy and the liberal arts.

Even your example with geocentrism is actually a counter-argument to yourself. At that time, the consensus view was geocentrism and so naturally anything that went against the consensus was dangerous and scorned, resulting in being put in prison and silenced.

That's what you are suggesting we regress to...