The scientific justification we have (in the situation you describe) for our belief comes from the data, not the the consensus.
But the data is not always unambiguous. There can be, and often is, two competing theories. It is often consensus as to which one is accepted as mainstream.
I got back to my Alzheimer’s example. It’s the general consensus that the amyloid hypothesis is wrong. However, there are those that hold onto it and it’s not because they don’t grasp the data. There are still enough unknowns to firmly put it to rest.
The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”. It was wrong.
Consensus is nothing more than “what is the best interpretation of the data based on our current understanding”. Current understanding being defined by “what do most scientists think?”.
Your definition of consensus was worded in a way which was confusing to me, so I have reworded it: "Conensus is what most scientists think is the best interpretation of the data".
Sure. I don't have any significant disagreement with that definition.
>The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”.
Not scientific truth. Perhaps the strongest theory given the evidence. Point is, consensus irrelevant non-factor for scientific strength of theory.
But the data is not always unambiguous. There can be, and often is, two competing theories. It is often consensus as to which one is accepted as mainstream.
I got back to my Alzheimer’s example. It’s the general consensus that the amyloid hypothesis is wrong. However, there are those that hold onto it and it’s not because they don’t grasp the data. There are still enough unknowns to firmly put it to rest.
The bacterial hypothesis is another good example. The data supported that stress and diet was the cause of stomach ulcers. That was the “scientific truth”. It was wrong.
Consensus is nothing more than “what is the best interpretation of the data based on our current understanding”. Current understanding being defined by “what do most scientists think?”.