Another thing I like to point out about Experts...
Experts are still human. They have been trained to use the skills. That does not mean they are not without bias. It does not mean they may not be swayed by emotion or some other motivator and fail to properly apply those skills without bias in all cases. With that in mind they are not above question. The only thing an expert is truly useful for is indicating that it is MORE PROBABLE that they have the answer in their field of expertise. Being more probable does not make it a certainty. We must still be able to question, challenge, and verify.
As to science. Scientists are scientists WHEN they are following the scientific method. They are not scientists when they are not following the scientific method.
As you accurately pointed out. Consensus is not part of the scientific method.
If a single person thought A was the truth and every other person thought B is the truth.
The consensus would be whatever B stated.
Yet sometimes A is correct. Consensus is meaningless to the scientific method. It actually can slow down and corrupt science.
Anything NEW in science is likely to challenge consensus. If it is new there are also no PEERS to peer review your work. These artificial gatekeeping techniques add stagnation into the practice of science. They corrupt it.