What makes a scientist a scientist instead of a crackpot is the debugging and validation. Trying to exclude every way the results might not mean what it seems like they mean—not just doing control-experiment comparison and saying you’ve done your duty.
This would make most modern professional scientists crackpots which sounds a bit noncentral—they may be no true scientists, but they seem very different from the crackpots I’ve met.
There’s a bit of a gap between what ordinary not-very-good scientists do to make sure the experiment is right and what they should be doing.
There is a colossal gulf between what crackpots do and ordinary not-very-good scientists do.
Certain branches of physics are nowhere near as bad as medicine when it comes to that.