A not uncommon scenario: There is data X, as the result of some experiment.  Researches in group 1 say X implies A and B, researchers in group 2 say X implies A and C, and researchers in group 3 say X implies Q then A. They all propose different sets of experiments to further understand the phenomenon, they all write different papers, etc. Yet we can say there is consensus about implication A.  Even if some data Y comes along (at a later point) completely disproving A, consensus on A (currently) drives further research.<p>For example: the ether, higgs particle, various cutting edge medical stuff.<p>My point here is they aren't voting on what is true so much as agreeing on the most likely scenario given the evidence and deciding how to further persue investigation.