And because I am a complete amateur in all other fields of astronomy, I gain my knowledge from listening to the professionals. I conclude that those that hold the majority opinion among the experts are more likely to be correct than those that hold the minority opinion. That is because I know that science is about making hypotheses and carry out observations, measurements and data simulations to test those hypotheses. If there is a majority of astronomers who believe in one model, when a minority of astronomers believe in another model, then I conclude that "the majority model" fits the observations and data simulations better than the "minority model".
Whether something is scientifically correct or not has nothing to do with majorities; there is no democracy in the scientific principle. Indeed, the more complex a particular subject is, the more likely it is that only a minority will be capable of comprehension.
I was talking about the majority views among professional astronomers
Astronomers spend their professional lives trying to understand astronomy. They learn what the astronomical field already knows about the universe, and through what observations, measurements and simulations that knowledge was gained. They learn the general principles about how we can go about to learn more about the universe. And they push against the boundaries, trying to learn more.
We are lucky that there are those who come up with new ideas and new hypotheses, because thanks to them, astronomy sometimes makes new breakthroughs.
But only sometimes. A new idea has to pass many rigorous tests. If it fails at least some of the tests that the old, established theory has passed, then the new idea is not likely to be accepted by the majority of professional astronomers.
My own, amateur belief is that important new breakthroughs often happens because of new, unexpected observations. That was the case with the discovery of dark energy. Two teams, one led by Saul Perlmutter and the other led by Brian Schmidt, discovered, independently of one another, that very distant supernovas appeared to be farther away than they "ought" to be, as if the universe was speeding up.
Many astronomers have tried to challenge the idea of dark energy. They have tried to show that the apparent acceleration doesn't exist and can be explained through other means, or that the observations were faulty or incomplete. It's fine and good that the theory of dark energy is being tested again and again. If it is faulty, we need to know. But so far, a majority of professional astronomers still think that the apparent acceleration of the universe is real.
Personally I think that that is all we can do: listen to the experts, ask them why they reason the way they do, and ask other experts to challenge the majority view to see if the majority view is going to crumble - but not accept the minority view just because it is the minority.
And of course, we can always try to get better observations, better simulations, better data. In the end, I believe that that is what is going to really reveal more of the secrets of the universe.