Well, that's a good thing. Let me clarify what I mean by consensus, though, and I think you'll agree with me.
Yes having read your fuller explanation I do, broadly, agree.
A scientific consensus is not formed from a vote of scientists. A consensus forms around the ideas that have proven the most successful through a long drawn-out process of successful research that produces papers and discussions with ideas and results that other research draws upon, and so on and so forth. In the end you have a large body of validated research and results.
This still does assume that there is a scientific 'community' or 'process' that is ultimately
immune to sociological factors and is purely pragmatic in nature.
I fully acknowledge that there is no practical reason to doubt this 'process' to date as it has been wholly pragmatic, and empirically successful as a result, so far.
However I would qualify your argument by adding that the process you outline is
theoretically vulnerable to dogma should adverse sociological conditions make it likely or even necessary.
In fact that is exactly what the creationist lobby claim
has happened regards the theory of evolution.
So I find myself in the bizzarre position of agreeing, at least in hypothetical terms, with the creationist lobby as far as that which potentially shapes scientific consensus is concerned.................
Oh no! AAArrrggghhh. Help!