This is a very hyperbolic statement, and makes the common mistake of framing science as built around a central corpus of knowledge, defended by personalities. Whilst science is a human endeavour, and individual scientists suffer all the same shortcomings that human beings exhibit, this is not how it is practised. Scientific consensus
is a thing - you can literally gather N scientists in a room, and have them agree on principles and results. There will always be differences of opinion; for example, there are a huge number of interpretations of what a measurement means in quantum mechanics. But, good science is practised with an eye towards the limits of our understanding. For example, the standard model of physics explains
nearly everything that we can observe, whilst we also know that there are some things that it can't. We also know that physical theories often seem to be simple, whereas the SM is complex - it likely is an
effective theory. Knowing both of these things does not break the concept of consensus. Much of physics research is currently dedicated to figuring out how to break the standard model theories, despite the fact that it works so well.
When you hear "consensus", no one is saying that each scientist would write down an identical essay on the subject. Rather it means broad-scale agreement, and a common understanding.
When you hear "consensus", no one is saying that each scientist would write down an identical essay on the subject. Rather it means broad-scale agreement, and a common understanding.