Asklemmy

If 99% of sources state one way and only the remainder state the other then the presumption should he that the majority are correct. To say otherwise would either imply that this lesser known source has some unique, even clairvoyant insight to the matter that the greater population does not, or that there is a willfull disregard for some obvious flaw in the prevailing thought.

The first improbable because if they did have unique insight then tgeorbfindings would be picked up by the larger population.

The second would entail a conspiring of global scalebvetween nations, media, practioners, and mutiplebother indipendent groups for some intangible benefit to perhaps one or a few small entities where the rest simply act as willing pawns for no personal gain.

Stating that people shouldn't make decisions based on the current prevailing knowledge would leave the world in a perpetual paralysis unable to move forward since it's always possible the reality is different than we know today.

Note that this all doesn't say MSM is the end all gospel, but that the prevailing consensus should be taken as the given rather than suspect. Someone who wants something to be true will invariably find a source to support themselves, but only through absurd modification of correlations. For example, the rise in global temperatures and increased height of people is due to the black of touch by the flying spaghetti monster's appendage and a reduction of people in his preferred private garb in recent years.