Any even marginal analysis of this fact with non-megalomaniac epistemology leads very abruptly to the position that you are not (much??) more likely to be right than your intellectual opposition, regardless your strong feelings, and "proofs" of a topic. They are highly unimpressed by your proofs, and you are unimpressed by theirs.
Conclusion: For any position with a counterpoint held by multiple people...the other side is pursuing an important truth. Until you can articulate, argue for, and feel the importance of that truth, arguing against it on the basis of it being obviously stupid simply makes you look silly to neutral observers. (opinion generated recently by reading Moldbug on Rawls...or historically, reading Leonard Piekoff on any topic).