To summarize what you just said is that scientists are continually collecting new data, theories and information and modify their positions to adapt to the new facts and infer that this is the "scientific method". But that is just not true. Science is never determined by consensus. When using the scientific method, one specifies a thesis and proposes tests to prove or refute that theory. As long as the tests are properly designed and administered, the thesis is either proven true or false and that is not refutable. When Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity, he maintained the shape of space-time was curved by the effect of gravity. While the theory was proposed in 1916, it could not be tested until 1923 during a total eclipse of the sun. Prior to the eclipse, the light from a prominent star was in position A. As the sun moved closer to the star, it's position was shown to be in position B because the light passed close to the surface of the sun where space-time was curved because of the gravity of the sun. Thesis proved and is not refutable whether or not you understand or agree with the findings. That's the scientific method and how science proceeds.

Please reread my statement as you quoted it. I said absolutely nothing about "consensus." I mentioned "peer review." I think we are in lock step agreement on this, otherwise.

Scientists do present and test hypotheses, then publish the results of their experiments in journals in their fields. They then solicit peer review. It is the verification of the validity of the test, AND duplication of results during that peer review, that cement the proof of concept. "Respect the discovery, but distrust it until it's verified," is the standard.