There are three types of reality; objective reality, subjective reality and consensus reality. Or perhaps more accurately there are these three ways of perceiving reality, and only of them is reality (objective reality), one of them is something in between (subjective reality) and consensus reality is not reality at all. It is an ephemeral construct used for a purpose for a period of time, at best. A mass delusion leading to centuries of murder and enslavement at worst.
Objective reality the reality which exists regardless of us. Something is real even if you and me aren’t. What that is, is another question. Presumably we exist in the objective reality, however we perceive it, for the most part, in our subjective way, which often skews our perceptions in some way. Then there is consensus reality, which is basically only an idea shared by a group of people. The idea may have been devised by a single individual and infused onto others, or it may have been created equally by all participants.
We hear things like the “scientific consensus” on this matter is so and so. It is an oxymoron. A scientific fact, nor a truth, can ever be deduced by a consensus. A truth is a truth, whether or not everyone or no-one believes in it. Consensus belongs to the sphere of politics or hobbies. A group of politicians may come to a consensus on how to enact a certain policy, a group of friends may decide to go play ice hockey together on the weekend. A consensus pertains to decision making, which hopefully is based on some degree of truth, but you cannot have a scientific consensus. The truthfulness behind the decision to play ice hockey would be something like everyone within that group enjoys it. The truthfulness behind the policy is that everyone deciding on the policy benefits from it. A scientific consensus, however, works only the lines of everyone here believes the earth is flat, those that disagree are killed. There, we have a consensus.
If several different researchers come to the same conclusion independently, it is laudable. Hopefully it suggests their findings are correct. However, even if they discuss the findings together and find they agree, does not make it a scientific consensus. The fact that the objective truth and the consensus coincide is coincidental. You can never deduce what the truth is simply by looking at the consensus. All you find out that way is what the consensus is.
Religions, including scientism, which is religion masquerading as science, usually try to convince you that their consensus is reality. They tell you to follow their dogma, and ignore your own reason and intuition. Trust their hierophants and doctors. Even if what they are saying is true, they dilute the truth by trying to make you forgo your own understanding of the matter, and merely follow their consensus teachings. Ultimately, these consensus religions try to convince you that the artificial ideas of man is more important than the natural, or spiritual, reality.
Believing in a consensus is not wrong in itself. We all can, and should, come to an agreement with other people in various issues. However, consensus is related to deciding on a course of action; do we buy a new car or save the money? Matters of taste can be a consensus issue too; you and your mates may agree that Megan Fox is prettier than Natalie Portman. I don’t think any objective truth can be reached on that issue. When you are trying to find scientific and even deeper truths of our world, is when consensus should be discarded. A consensus fits a scenario when a group of researchers are trying to decide on the best course of action to research a complicated issue. A springboard for truth, but once you are getting close to the truth, or believe you are, you must leave all consensus behind.