That's true of a lot of the "science" that makes its way into the media spotlight. Much of that is actually just PR: "Hershey's scientists find chocolate is better than sex!", etc. I don't think you'll find that true at all of serious, impactful papers that actually have an influence on consensus in a field.

If that were true, then the figure for scientific consensus being true would be much lower than 90%. But I don't believe that. I'd have to wonder what these scientists were doing, that I could just waltz in and blow them away with my wits and reason. I mean, what are the other scientists in this hypothetical field _doing_? Are they that incompetent or corrupt, that I can just blow a hole in their field based on casual observation? Why can't they see the same things I can?

This brings me back to that journal benchmark. Do you think you could write a summary paper discounting a substantial body of research for exhibiting various flaws? If so, do you think it would be accepted? I suggest there are few fields where it's really that easy.