This paper on Castro Consensuses is fascinating and (technical analysis aside) common sense:
“When a consensus is formed by the independent and free deliberations of many, it is indeed a strong indicator of truth. Yet not all consensuses are independent and freely formed. We investigate the role of dependence and pressure in the formation of consensus, showing that strong polarization, external pressure, and dependence among individuals can force consensus around an issue, regardless of the underlying truth of the affirmed position. Dependence breaks consensus, often rendering it meaningless; a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.”
So, consensuses reached without bully pressures are epistemically more reliable? Well, I’ll be!
Here, my untested hypothesis is that Castro Consensuses are more probably to occur in those areas of research (philosophic or scientific) which have significant social-political import or the possibility thereof. Because intellectuals are so fantastically reverenced when it comes to public policy and political debate, are we really so naïve to assume this doesn’t increase the likelihood of corruption or social pressures to conform? In fact, I am certain that it does. Castro Consensuses abound in philosophy, such if you even dare question (let alone disagree with!) a position of a particular sort you’ll be taken behind the proverbial shed. (And if the gatekeeps don’t get you, probably the Twitter Mob will.)
Of course, this doesn’t mean the consensus is wrong (it could be right!), it only shows why appeals to consensus aren’t sufficient to settle the debate.