Can you give me some examples?
Let's approach this first without examining scientific examples at all, because for contrarians like you it's not actually about the science. Let's examine what disbelieving the science functionally requires.
It requires believing not just one branch of science, astronomy, is a vast conspiracy. No, it requires believing that astronomy, physics, every branch of engineering, biology, oceanography, geology, geography, meteorology, all of mathematics beyond grade school, are vast conspiracies involving millions of scientists across time, politics, and just about every conceivable human divide. That's a place you can go, but basic human behavioral incentives show why it's a silly one: scientists and academicians get nowhere in their careers if all they do is confirm existing theories. The names on the Nobels, the ones with in the textbooks, and even the ones who advance in modest academia are those who make discoveries or prove things contrary to existing dogmas.
Just think of the names any dribbler knows: Darwin, Galileo, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Watson and Crick. These are people who changed existing knowledge in massive ways. These are the scientists that every scientist wants to
be. In other words, every single scientist on earth has a powerful incentive to counter existing beliefs. And yet science over the past five centuries has unearthed just more and more interlocking ways in which the only set of facts that allows any branch of science to make sense in light of all others is based on the earth being round and revolving around the sun.
Think of all the powerful contrarian incentives: wouldn't it have been a powerful victory for the USSR to show that the US, UK, and the rest of the twentieth-century capitalist establishment was just dead wrong in terms of a major tenet of its science?
Well, turns out they tried. But the ones they challenged were Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, not earth science. And the result was a massive decline in crop yields and mass famine. Turns out that incredulous contrarianism has its costs.
Now, just to return to an example that's been discussed to death: ships over the horizon. There is always a horizon, and it has a maximum bound that happens to conform exactly to what one would predict based on a round earth of the accepted diameter. That's something one can confirm in both directions - going from theory to observation, but also observation to theory. Not so with whatever atmospheric pressure gobbledygook you came out with. It's an unmoored assertion that loosely correlates with some aspects of reality but does not correlate with other major observable facts and requires that human eyesight and oceanic navigation somehow become dismembered from the rest of science and objective reality.
