Consensus would almost be an irrelevant curiosity except for what it replaces. It replaces evidence.

There are major contradictions in replacing evidence with consensus. Where does the consensus come from? Supposedly, there was some sort of prior study of evidence. If so, why oppose the evidence; and when is the switch supposed to be made from relying upon evidence and opposing it?

Supposedly, authorities study evidence, and then lesser persons rely upon the result. There is no place in rational existence for separating the superiority of authorities from the submission of lesser persons. Who decides where that line is supposed to be? Who creates accountability for authorities?

The whole process of promoting consensus is dependent upon the infallibility of authorities. They never are infallible, and an absence of accountability guarantees their corruption. Power is too corrupt to allow authorities to be infallible.

Furthermore, there is no method of correcting errors or making improvements with consensus based realities. All corrections and improvements start with one person and increase due to evidence. The promotion of consensus prevents small groups (minorities) from functioning and making improvements.

There isn't some invisible mechanism guarantying the perfection of consensus before it is imposed onto minorities. To the contrary, the promoters of consensus start at the beginning and overwhelm single persons with a consensus of two, which is exactly how relativity was railroaded onto physics—starting person-by-person, until there were enough persons promoting the fraud to overwhelm opponents.

Where objective reality is evaluated on the basis of evidence and logic, there is no place for consensus in the process. The evidence and logic have the same significance at the end of the process as at the beginning, particularly since there never is an end to the process of rationality.