Pure sophistry on your part.
Your remark about science building in past work was an attempt to redefine science as consensus.
The counterexample stands.
Dingbat.
Mhm. I expect science to be consistent, the quality you try to disparage as "consensus." If there is no consensus on scientific topics that have been exhaustively researched, there is a problem.
The scientific consensus is that DNA carries the "blueprint" of the organism. The scientific consensus is that the Black Death was caused by Yersinia pestis. The scientific consensus is that the sun is a giant ball of primarily hydrogen undergoing nuclear fusion reactions and emitting light and heat. The scientific consensus is that fish gills enable fish to breathe under water. Etc. Etc. I can go on with scientific consensuses all day. The fact that scientists typically all agree with each other on scientific topics and facts does not discredit science. On the contrary, it reinforces the reliability and robustness of the scientific method.
You know what is not consistent and where there is no consensus? Antivax pseudoscience. Those kooks literally say anything.