This is cherry-picking. Your interlocutors have already stipulated that on occasion, the scientific establishment has been wrong, and the cranks have been righ

This is cherry-picking. Your interlocutors have already stipulated that on occasion, the scientific establishment has been wrong, and the cranks have been right. Their point is that this is almost never the case. There are and have been cranks who dispute the scientific consensus on almost every point since the scientific method was first developed. Are you also suggesting we should believe the anti-vaxxers who still back Andrew Wakefield's paper? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say climate change isn't real? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say the earth is flat? Are you also suggesting we should believe the people who say that our current trees aren't "really" trees, and all the "real", giant, trees were killed long ago? [0] All of these are cranks who disagree with the established scientific consensus—sometimes in bizarre but harmless ways, sometimes in extremely damaging and disturbing ones. If your point is genuinely "we should listen to cranks because they have a good track record", why not them, too? Why not all of them? Or is there, in fact, something specific about this one that makes you think it's got something going for it besides "they might be actually super smart and seeing something the rest of us are missing"? If so, maybe lead with that, instead? [0] https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees https://www.inverse.com/article/21098-flat-earthers-trees