For any particular idea, the community of scholars needs one (1) person to forward it. Any second person is redundant, and should be re-assigned to dig ditches or perform routine lab work.
However, generating as many hypotheses as possible is valuable. This means different minds with different experiences and different styles of thinking.
Bonus round: scholarship is particularly anti-democratic. The more thinkers openly agree with an idea, the more time and money you're wasting and the more seriously you need a purge.
P.S. I see no reason scholasticism can't be particularly cutthroat. If novelty is the sine qua non, then can you get someone fired by showing all their ideas are derivative? Yes. And that's wonderful. Similarly, it should be possible to take a warrior-class job by beating the tar out of the previous office-holder.