It doesn't mean that you're correct about the shape of the planet, though. Adam Smith's work can stand alone and your hitching a lift on his economic theories hardly enhances your overall credibility.
The point being that whether or not Point A is right has no bearing on Point B. "You are wrong about Point B, so you must be wrong about Point A" is a false equivalency. A marine science expert can be wrong about rocket science. Different fields have different sets of knowledge, so the idea that being crazy is somehow a limiter to coherent thought is nonsense.
There were quite a few crazy scientists who nonetheless did pretty clever work. Hell, Harry Harlow did successfully manage to prove that having loving parents is all-important, even though his Pit of Despair experiment was so sadistic that he basically singlehandedly established a motive to make PETA.
But the earth isn't flat. You're being called stupid or crazy for holding that position.
But everyone I've asked, they can't explain why it's wrong or stupid. I get a "well, you should know why that's a stupid idea."
Ummm, pardon me for a second, but is that before or after I'm told to "trust the science" on blind faith?
Why is it crazy to believe in a God with plenty of personal experiences, but not crazy to distrust a scientific idea that has flimsy or fake evidence?
If someone stupid or crazy says "It's raining" and it is raining, but people use their past stupid/crazy as an excuse why even such a statement cannot be trusted ("Bah it's not raining! That guy believes in aliens"), what can be said of those people?
Actually, if something is in plain evidence, and they ignore the evidence, either they have some sort issue, or they're trying to trick me.
Right now, where I live, it is night. If anyone said that it's morning, I could conclude one of three things:
(a) They are being figurative (like "It's two in the morning," only it's not yet after 12, so that's out).
(b) They are gaslighting.
(c) They are screwed up in the head.