I posted this elsewhere, but I thought it was worth reposting here.
A large part of these debates have boiled down to "how trustworthy is scientific consensus." Here's the thing, you (and I) are not an expert in most fields. Nobody is an expert in most fields. End of story. Therefore, when a system is in place where the experts can be fact-checked by peers, and where dissenting opinions eventually do percolate to the top, it is best to assume the results of that system are the "most correct" results. For that reasons, the most appropriate starting position in any of these disagreements is scientific consensus (if one exists).
That's not to say you should turn your brain off. Quite the opposite. When convincing, accurate information becomes available that counters the consensus opinion you need to weigh that against your original position (scientific consensus) and decide an appropriate new paradigm to accept. This rarely means discarding the scientific consensus however, because it was generally formed by experts and you are not an expert.
Let's consider a few case examples of very smart people (smarter than you and smarter than me) who stepped outside their expertise and proved to be very wrong.
Example 1: Linus Pauling:
He is the reason you probably believe that massive doses of vitamin C (a water soluble vitamin) can prevent or cure the common cold. that accurate sums up fact-vs-fiction. Why did people believe him? He is a rare recipient of two Nobel Prizes: the chemistry prize and the peace prize. However, he wasn't a biologist.
Example 2: Albert Einstein:
Perhaps you've heard "God does not play dice with the universe" as being attributed to him. In fact, if you come from certain misinformed circles you may have even heard that quote statement. It is in fact a statement of disbelief in quantum mechanics. Einstein was not only brilliant, but a physicist. Even in the domain of physics he was confronted by a truth that was beyond his ability to accept.
In short, unless you are much much smarter than Einstein and Linus Pauling, it is unlikely you will be able to fully understand, let alone contradict, the state of the art in any especially complex science. That's why you're better off trusting the experts.