The consensus is sometimes wrong, rightlick. It's not just einstein who thinks it's not true. In 19 o five, there's a bunch of other people who are questioning it. There's a fight, they lose the fight, and then what happens to the doctrine after its a dismissed by the main stream? But in some cases, it gets enough adherents who think that something wasn't taken into account,. And it can build its own a community around it. Creationism was a plausible scientific hypothesis in the early nineteenth century, and it just isn't any more as an infra structure.
Everyone has heard of the term “pseudoscience”, typically used to describe something that looks like science, but is somehow false, misleading, or unproven. Many would be able to agree on a list of things that fall under its umbrella — astrology, phrenology, UFOlogy, creationism, and eugenics might come to mind. But defining what makes these fields “pseudo” is a far more complex issue. Given the virulence of contemporary disputes over the denial of climate change and anti-vaccination movements — both of which display allegations of “pseudoscience” on all sides — there is a clear need to better understand issues of scientific demarcation. Shermer and Gordin explore the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation.