You're wrong, science isn't about consensus and people get this unbelievably wrong so many times it's frustrating ...

Is a consensus supposed to be right when most scholars in Galileo's time belived that the sun revolved around the earth ? 

Another trick question for you is if Newton's Laws surrounding motion is more correct than Einstein's theory of special relativity according to consensus at the time Einstein pusblished his paper ? 

And I am not saying that the scientific community is stuck in one country. It's that they are stuck in an echochamber where progressives limit academic freedom when it comes to the studies of the human genome ...

At least religion doesn't claim to be academically honest when large parts of the scientific community shames the shit upon those who studies between human genetic lines ... 

The hilarious part about this... When I was in Queensland Australia, I was staying at a place near an extinct volcano which had historically had significant pumice flows sometime in history. There were massive boulders that could literally float on the water. I kid you not.

One thing that you seem to misunderstand is that scientists don't assume their theories to be unquestionable truths, or even necessarily likely yo be the truth.

For a scientist, a fact is simply something that is better justified than anything contesting, making any other belief foolish to hold - even if it remains possible.

Of course new ideas will receive alot of scrutiny. New theories are proposed all the time, and, more often than not, they contain strong flaws not immediately apparent.

Once it's all been double-checked, it becomes the new consensus.

For a layman, scientific consensus is the only rational conclusion to make - because you lack the knowledge to comprehend the problems and arguments to their full extent by yourself, your best evaluation of the most probable truth is taking whatever the most qualified individuals state as truth.

Volcanic stone is extremely light, and often traps gases, giving it a lower density than water.

That's...not how it works. Scientists gather observeable, repeatable/reproducable data in order to formulate theories. As more data becomes available those theories may change/be dissmissed. Heck, the main drive for a scientist is to prove a theory wrong or add appreciably to a theory. Or even formulate a new one. That's how progress is made. In contrast with religion where you have a set of immovable, unchangeable beliefs on which you base your entire existence.

Misunderstand how exactly ? I'd like to see scientists never falling victim that their assumptions are infallible but their just humans too in the end which can fall victim to the likes of a hivemind where they lose their independence to do studies separately ... 

I do not like the idea of a consensus determining what is and isn't valid when science is about attempting independent studies to verify the ground truth ... 

Am I supposed to trust democratically leaning scientists on matters such as genetics ? Likewise am I supposed to trust republican leaning scientists on matters such as envirnmental science ? The answer in both cases are a big fat NO! 

Scientific reasoning can only flourish when there are thought provoking ideas that try to challenge our current understanding ... 

Too many times do I see bias revelling in the rest of the scientific community disregarding good data and valid points from Nazi scientists or eugenicists just because they held controversial views that just about everyone hated or disliked ... 

I stand firm in that science is supposed to be about physical evidence rather than a consensus because a consensus produces a bias which can distort the emprical truth ... 

It's just so sad to see that our scholars, academics, journalists who are very liberally leaning seriously get it so wrong about the election because they let their bias produce bad data ... 

And I don't disagree with that if you got that impression from my post but it's poor as shit to have a consensus dominate over evidence when we've seen this many times ... 

People need to understand that Consensus =/= Empirical evidence ... 

Well, yeah but in order to properly analyse and understand the empirical evidence you do need several qualified (as in know enough about the subject) people who generally agree on the results. You can't have a single person be the ultimate authority on the matter because we're still just human. There's plenty of subjectivity on our part. This is why it's important to have a scientific consensus. I don't believe it makes it like a tiranny of the majority that suppresses different thoughts and ideas, although that's not to say it hasn't happened. Again - we are human. Eventually, though if it is proven even a drastically different theory will be accepted.

Science should be accessible to everyone but alas the tools needed are too complex ... (I do not like science being dominated by academics or scholars when bias is seeping through from those groups.) 

You don't want a consensus as it produces bias and your treading on a very dangerous territory of groupthink ... 

I want you to know that science is NEVER determined by consensus since it misses the point that verification of theories are based upon epirical evidence rather than what your peers think ... 

Tyranny of the majority is a very real thing going on in the science community when a majority of them are academically dishonest if social darwanism is brought up and similarily the social sciences are suffering because a huge demographic of those specializing in that field are liberally leaning ... 

Again - you need years of learning and experience on a subject. Hence why it is dominated by academics or scholars. I mean an average person can't really understand the data collected on global warming for example (since it's currently such a hot topic). It should be available for him, definitely. But he/she simply lacks the knowledge to interpret it.

True but the basics are not hard to understand. Hell aligning a 100.000 year graph of CO2 emissions and the mean temperature on earth should give a pretty good example. The same goes for global temperature and the sea level they all follow the same pattern. As for how climate change influences hurricanes, droughts and precipitation around the world is more difficult as is how the data is verified. Using O2 isotopes and such but the basics are enough for regular people to make a connection and also see why this antropogenic climate change has a very unusual/fast rate. Same goes for evolution and mutations of the DNA. The how is rather difficult to explain but the what evolution is and the effects aren't. Problem is like most long therm problem is the scale of the time lines evolution takes 1.000s and the case of ape to human 10.000s of years.