Other notable "scientific theories" include:
- Black holes
- Germ theory
- Mendelian genetics
- All human physiology
To get beyond "theory" to become a scientific "law" has only truly been done by thermodynamics (Entropy, conservation of energy, equal and opposite reaction). A theory means that no one has been able to take it down, which befits almost all human knowledge.
Regarding the fact that using scientific consensus to form one's ideas about how things really are as a sign of an "atrophied mind", this is also blatantly insane.....I would say it is much more indicative of a mature mind. A mature mind has experienced a very valuable thing in life: Being somewhere where there are people smarter than they are. The opposite is the immature mind, which believes only it is capable of original or truly introspective though, usually because they have never been around those of greater mental aptitude. This is why college, when done right (rare nowadays), really can change people. It matures their mind.
The "appeal to authority" ridiculousness is used in almost every dead-end argument all over the debating sphere, and will get one laughed at in a professional setting such as a scientist or lawyer....About 99% of the knowledge any person has is, under this asinine logic, an "appeal to authority"....unless one has physically witnessed something, all we can do is take others' word for it. I am not a chemist, but I trust that it is likely a bad idea to go playing catch with a water balloon of nitroglycerin. I am appealing to authority in doing so, because people more versed in explosives have told me I may die if I do this.....we are living on top of the Earth, rather than inside it for instance, on our appeals to authority. I have not been in space and watched myself ascend, therefore I take others word for it that I am on top of the planet rather than inside of it. Those clouds could all be an illusion by my benevolent masters
The opposite of those that are ramrod conformists are not the anarchists, but rather those that make a point to never take a conventional stance on anything, not based on evidence, but out of a sense of identity of a contrarian. Online, they are everywhere.
The internet has led to a cadre of what a professor I had once called "B-league All-Stars". It comes from hockey, where a person makes a point to NEVER go up to the A-leagues, because they dominate in B. They know though that if there WERE to go to the real competition they would get buried, no longer get worshiped as the best player, overall get marginalized....so they stay in B forever to be their big fish in a small pond.
Online research of any serious topic, from evolution to physiology to history, is full of "B-league All Stars". They are "guys with a website" that thrive on challenging, being eternal contrarians, to keep a contorted following of the laymen to worship them. One can find them in all topics, including nutrition.....but they rely on ONE big thing; never going to the A-league....never going in front of people that are in their field, know their stuff, to test their hypotheses on any big topic.
I make a point to never listen to anyone from that crowd, on anything. My opinion is that if one has some Earth-shattering ideas on evolution, physiology, or anything remotely scientific, for them to stand in front of their peers and take the barrage. Those that don't are either cowards or charlatans (I.E. Making stuff up to those not educated enough in that area to rebut them). Either way, they don't deserve to be listened to.
I say this because I am aware of all of the wacky stuff on evolution one can find online....these B-leaguers are wannabes and wishful thinkers that prey on the contrarian at all costs crowd. That does not mean they actually know what they are talking about.
"Man is born free.....but everywhere he is in chains."