One could argue, for example, that most Constitutional scholars agree that Federal regulation of workplaces is supported by the Constitution. However, most of these scholars hold to the position of
stare decisis, so that the body of judicial opinion from John Marshall's day to our own is authoritative in interpretation of that document. This theory disregards what is the clear intent of the Framers of the Constitution, the doctrine of original intent. Many conservatives and most libertarians, including many FR posters, adhere to the doctrine of "original intent." Thus, they reject liberals or neo-conservatives who support Federal action based on
stare decisis. "Most constitutional scholars" are regarded by them as an appeal to an inappropriate authority.
The same would apply to the "mainstream scientific community," which supports a naturalist worldview.
I see, so what you'd like is for us to accept the existence of a new sort of logical fallacy, the fallacy of citing authorities Wallace disagrees with.
I do not think this is likely to gain much traction among the logicians and philosophers of the world, but let me know how it works out.