I'll have to disagree with the spirit of Crichton's argument on this. Yes, there have been many times throughout the course of history when the consensus has been incorrect - the earth revolving around the sun, for example. However, Just because we have examples of Consensus being incorrect, does not mean we should continually dismiss it as being incorrect. I feel like the "Relativity of Wrong" applies here in some way (if not, i am nevertheless reminded of it).

Consensus is still a very useful tool when it comes to explaining difficult concepts in the public sphere. For example, I've done hours of research on what the scientific, medical, and psychiatric community has to say about Transgender people. reducing what I know into something that someone will understand (specifically someone who has a problem with trans people and is misinformed ) is very difficult. It is much easier, useful, and impactful to say "Here is what the APA has to say, here's what the AMA has to say. You're wrong, and either misinformed or purposely ignorant."

The important thing to remember is that consensus is not enough. Consensus has to be something that you use as a first step, but can then back up with evidence. If the evidence doesn't match up, the Consensus is wrong, but this also depends on what evidence the consensus had to go on at the time. New evidence will change the consensus.

I think it is better to say "There is no such thing as science by consensus" rather than "There is no such thing as Consensus Science".