No, that's the point. Disagreeing is already part of the scientific method. To disagree with science as a whole is to argue with the method, not the findings.

Imagine two explorers searching for a lost ancient ruins. They come to a path running north/south. One says to go north and the other says south. That's a disagreement. They are both still explorers seeking discovery.

A third observer sees them arguing and says "Ah, you don't know the way. We should not be seeking ruins because I already know what is there. I was told in a dream that the ruins were made by Bigfoot, and he made them invisible and impossible to see. Searching is futile, but I can draw you a map from what I already know is there."

That's not a third opinion of equal validity. It's not even a disagreement. It's just being wrong.