Are certain things *really* exceptions?

"That last bit is important." It is not only important, it is critical. We cannot have a rule by experts, as all too many examples provide. It is what the scientist brings to the table that is critically important otherwise youi have abnegated your mind to theirs. 

Of course, the usual critical thinking skills still apply. 

I would put this statement in bold, as saying that you can't trust other other common beliefs but then use the excuse that because a lot of scientists agree it is true is special pleading for appeal to common belief.

P.S.

Is there a study that gives names for systems of fallacies used like the above?

Thank you for your response!

Here are some things I would like to ask though, based on your answer:

It does, actually. Scientific consensus  is not the same as common belief .

Is it still a scientific consensus if it is mostly influenced by personal biases, or based directly off of common belief? (In any instance)

Be careful here you don't slip into the "science is constantly wrong therefore ignore it" camp. Scientific findings are constantly bringing us closer to the "truth" but rarely reverse course.

I would agree that there are aspects of scientific research that are true, and that are purely based on what is observable, it is the not-so-observable things I may challenge and entertain alternatives from time to time. For example, if there was a God-Entity perhaps, might we be wrong in saying that the world is billions of years old? I would find this as possible, and still others would say it is likely not, though such things I find are still based off of bias rather than what is observable. (e.g. Some methods used in the scientific field may use hedging or ad hoc to try and keep specific bias in the works, or we can/have come to faulty conclusions based off of current misunderstandings of science that could change in the future with new discoveries, no matter how small or drastic)

A scientific consensus is shorthand for scientific evidence. Accepting a scientific consensus is trusting the science more than you trust your own ability to accurately evaluate the preponderance of evidence on a given topic and come to an unbiased, conclusion. There is nothing unreasonable about this.

I agree, to an extent, that accepting scientific consensus is as long as it is just that, a purely scientific consensus. For example, if the majority of scientists where Hindus, would it be wise to trust them that many, many gods just float around and produce results that we can observe scientifically? Even if they found a way to "prove" that aspects of nature may belong to different deities, we cannot observe the Hindu gods, we are not able to observe billions of years (our lives being so short), and much more that I find would be or are rooted in preconceived biases.

Again, I would like to thank you for your response, and I would but ask if you would consider what I have written in this response.

Is it still a scientific consensus if it is mostly influenced by personal biases, or based directly off of common belief? (In any instance)

To suggest that a consensus is "mostly influenced by personal biases, or based directly off of common belief" is to suggest the failing of the scientific process itself. To suggest that a specific opinion of a scientist is "mostly influenced by personal biases, or based directly off of common belief" is reasonable, as we know it happens. However, an entire consensus is somewhat conspiratorial.

 it is the not-so-observable things I may challenge and entertain alternatives from time to time.

Observation is only one way to a scientific conclusion. There are many more paths that are just as definitive (e.g., mathematical proofs). The problem is, the layman cannot appreciate these methods and are easily manipulated to reject science.

if there was a God-Entity perhaps...

Science uses methodological naturalism. If there were magic (in the form of a god's powers or any other kind) all bets about everything are off. Until such magic is demonstrated, we assume methodological naturalism.

if the majority of scientists where Hindus, would it be wise to trust them that many, many gods just float around 

Please see my previous answer. We don't care about a scientist's philosophical musings. If the belief was not a result of the scientific process, it doesn't count as a consensus.

[To Bo Bennett, PhD]

To suggest that a consensus is "mostly influenced by personal biases, or based directly off of common belief" is to suggest the failing of the scientific process itself.

How so? Consider Gödel's incompleteness theorems, don't we all have preconceived biases in order to have a complete or proper understanding of the world, scientific or not? Couldn't scientific logic merely be a means of confirming our biases, in how they fit with reality?

To suggest that a specific opinion of a scientist is "mostly influenced by personal biases, or based directly off of common belief" is reasonable, as we know it happens. However, an entire consensus is somewhat conspiratorial. 

How about when all the scientists in a room have one similar bias that has influence on an experiment/journal/fill-in-the-blank, would it be wrong to assume that because they all had a similar bias, that it would have effected how they interpreted the data? Even bringing it back to the purely Hindu scientists, if they conducted research on nature, would it be unlike them to have Hindu ideas hinted within, no matter how subtle?

Observation is only one way to a scientific conclusion. There are many more paths that are just as definitive (e.g., mathematical proofs).

Indeed, but with what bias, what preconceived beliefs? It is like choosing a different lens to view something.

The problem is, the layman cannot appreciate these methods and are easily manipulated to reject science. 

How did you come to the conclusion that the layman cannot appreciate different methods? I appreciate different kinds of ways to get an answer as long as those ways are sound.

Science uses methodological naturalism.

In most instances, yes; though, how would you explain how we came into existence when the laws of physics have not had any observable change? Surely if the laws have not changed (Maybe they have, but I am not aware of any observation that shows that they did), wouldn't it be logical to conclude that if the second law of thermodynamics was complete in the beginning, that their had to be a supernatural force that made everything, inseparably tying the natural to the supernatural?

If there were magic (in the form of a god's powers or any other kind) all bets about everything are off. Until such magic is demonstrated, we assume methodological naturalism. 

Does power and cause need to be shown in the moment to know that it happened? What would convince a naturalist/atheist/nihilist that something was magical? From my point of view, even the most obviously supernatural thing they would just turn away as "a trick".

We don't care about a scientist's philosophical musings. If the belief was not a result of the scientific process, it doesn't count as a consensus. 

How about if their philosophical musings conflict with some other group of scientists elsewhere, what then?

Couldn't scientific logic merely be a means of confirming our biases, in how they fit with reality? 

No. If we do a test and find that one is 93 times more likely to die without a vaccine, there is no bias that can make this not true.

How about when all the scientists in a room have one similar bias...

You are referring to one study, not a global consensus. Yes, a handful of researchers from the same institution can allow a bias to slip into research. But it will be discovered in replication.

Indeed, but with what bias, what preconceived beliefs? It is like choosing a different lens to view something. 

I don't even know what you are asking here. It doesn't seem to follow from my answer.

In most instances, yes; 

No, in ALL instances science uses methodological naturalism. Otherwise, it isn't science.

What would convince a naturalist/atheist/nihilist that something was magical?

You would need to ask the specific naturalist/atheist/nihilist.

How about if their philosophical musings conflict with some other group of scientists elsewhere, what then? 

I already stated that philosophical musings are outside of scientific findings and irrelevant. So conflicting philosophical musings is also irrelevant.