I lied about you in some of the other comments.
I thought that you were not aware of the existence of scientific consensus; now I clearly see you are.
You probably do not understand science, though. What you called scientific method is just reason. It's not peculiar to science. It is just the faculty of being a human, scientist or otherwise.
What would be the purpose of applying scientific method (or reason) to science? How would science benefit from it? Everybody, scientist or otherwise, can apply reason. If science was driven only by reason, scientists would be out of business. Why would anybody need a scientist at all, if everybody is able to use their own reason, or make their own observation?
If science is to make any profit at all, it ought to serve somebody's personal goals. You refer to human nature in your post, yet it seems you do not understand it. Anything man is to get involved in needs to serve a purpose. The purpose of science is to popularise the ideas of the sponsor. Otherwise why would they be paying for it? You use Steemit to popularize your ideas, other people use science. Science is in the business of promoting unverifiable ideas (data about planets) for profit. I see absolutely to reason why science would be any other way. Science is not charity. More often than not it doesn't work pro bono.
Dude. I was a Physics major. I understand Science quite clearly.
You clearly do not.
The scientific method is NOT just reason. It is more like a recipe for how to apply reason to keep our own bias in check. The steps must be followed for it to be science.
As to the existence of scientific consensus. It doesn't exist. Anytime someone says that they are lying. Science has zero to do with consensus. It has only to do with what currently best explains the most observable data/evidence and can predict with the best accuracy future observations. Many times in history it has been the person challenging the consensus of the rest of the world that was correct. That person was sometimes literally burned at the stake. Other times they were vilified and ridiculed and eventually because those masses that were trying to practice science but instead would occasionally get suckered into consensus would realize when trying to challenge what the person said using actual science rather than an appeal to popularity fallacy realized that the person they had been vilifiying and attacking was right. Only when enough people pulled their heads out of their proverbial asses did they suddenly realize consensus was wrong.
Here is simple reason for you...
The truth in SCIENCE doesn't change because a billion people believe it is false.
Something false in SCIENCE doesn't change because a billion people believe it is true.
Consensus = Belief = Appeal to Popularity FALLACY
You are clearly the person that needs to go research some things...
#1 - The Scientific Method.
#2 - Argument from Popularity Fallacy (aka Appeal to Popularity Fallacy) (aka Bandwagon)
You will find books from the 1960s where they decided to write consensus into science. I own such a book. Yet this was a person deciding they had an authority to do this. They didn't. They don't. The scientific method was not and never has included BELIEF as a component. BELIEF is the realm of Consensus.