As @Clete pointed out, you're assuming what we know are facts, and not speculations that work for certain predictions.My comment about science and history was a thought about what happens in the future should there be a world wide catastrophe and civilization goes backwards, lets say to the bronze age. Going forward there is no reason to believe the future civilizations will look like ours today, but the science will since physics and chemistry will remain the same and eventually those who survive the catastrophe will discover that.
Well, that third one is more supported by consensus.the term "mainstream science" came for Clete's post, he used it.
Yes there is consensus in science, when it is based on facts. There is consensus about the germ theory of disease, consensus about the theory of gravity and consensus about the theory of evolution because they are all supported by facts and evidence.
So at any point in time, the consensus is likely wrong. So it would be less likely for the future generations to reproduce the bad science we might have today, since it is based on consensus.But science is willing to change should new facts and evidence appear. Alfred Wegener posited the theory of continental drift in the 1910's. He based that on the fit of the continents and biogeography of plants and animals, extinct and extant. That theory was not well thought of until the mid 20th century when studies of the ocean bottom showed the spreading at the mid ocean ridges---viola the theory of plate tectonics built on Wegener's hypothesis and now there is pretty much another consensus.
LikeIf you have any particular issue with consensus in current scientific thinking on a particular topic feel free to discuss.