Most scientists are essentially good people. They are simply mistaken about the shape of the Earth.
If you assume the Earth to be flat, then it is easy to make the data fit that model.
My point is about how well the available data fits a flat earth model vs a spherical earth model. The thing is you cannot assume either model first, the null hypothesis is that earth's shape is undefined, then you can compare the FE model to the null hypothesis and assess it FE has predictive validity to begin with. The same can be said about a spherical model, the assumption is that earth's shape is undefined, and you test to see if a spherical model significantly fits the data.
The point being that you wouldn't have to do any comparison between different models if only one has any predictive value, you'll have to wait until new models come along to do such a comparisons. This is how scientists try to avoid pigeonholing themselves and making unfounded conclusions.
Your statement about assuming a flat earth first reminds me of that Ghost hunters show where they openly say that they go into investigations to disprove the existence of a ghost, but this is backwards, you must go into the investigation assuming no ghosts exist (the null hypothesis) and gather evidence for the existence of ghosts. By their approach, any data that doesn't demonstrate the lack of a ghost in the house is evidence for such a ghost, so no wonder why they keep concluding there is ghost activity wherever they go.
As a side note, I'm not trying to insult you or equate your FE hypothesis with a ghost hypothesis, I'm just using this ghost hunters thing as a commonly known example of a poorly constructed hypothesis and invalided hypothesis testing leading to outlandish conclusions. It's more of a cautionary tail.