Here's a case for the value of controversy.

• LessWrong orthodoxy includes a large number of propositions (over a hundred posts in just core sequences, at least one thesis per post)
• The deductions that lead to each claim are largely independent (if post B was an obvious corollary of post A, it would have saved writer's and readers' time not to write it)
• Reasoning is error-prone, especially when not formalized (this is a point made in the sequences; if it's wrong then q.e.d.)
• Even if each deduction is overwhelmingly likely (let's say 99%) to be correct, it would be likely (63% in this case) that at least one out of a hundred would be incorrect
• Because these are deductive chains of reasoning (they're "the sequences", not just "the set"), one false deduction can invalidate any number of conclusions which follow from it. The Principle of Explosion has been defeating brilliant people for millennia.

In other words, even if you believe that each item of LessWrong consensus is almost certain to be correct, you should still be doubtful that every item of LessWrong consensus is likely to be correct. And if there are significant errors, then how else will they be found and publicized other than via a controversial discussion?