This is very much a known concept in the philosophy of science, especially under Feyerabend who mentions 'counterinduction' often as a tool to prevent scientific thought from stagnating into a dogma because it might turn into a system where every fact that might prove it wrong is discarded right away. Like how the heliocentric system was opposed to almost every fact given by science at the time.

But this is a method (for a lack of a better word; ironically, Feyerabend's whole point is that there is no strict and rational method) of actual scientific research by competent researchers. Someone with no more than the most basic understanding of biology, ecology and climate rejecting the consensus with no findings of their own to provide makes them a conspiracy theorist. 'The Earth moves around the sun because xyz, and you can prove it' in a geocentric society is a counterinductive questioning of the consensus. 'Vaccines don't work', 'Masks don't work', 'CO2 isn't making the planet warmer' is 100% of the time a conclusion found on the internet with at most one or two shallow arguments disproved decades ago (see Paul Hoyningen-Huene's: "Systematicity is necessary but not sufficient: on the problem of facsimile science")