> it's highly unlikely that the "final" dark matter candidate will be completely made up of baryonic matter but it's not been exclusively proven. That "highly"

> it's highly unlikely that the "final" dark matter candidate will be completely made up of baryonic matter but it's not been exclusively proven. That "highly" in "highly unlikely" is the key here, that highly is "immensely huge" e.g.: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L31/meta http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8205/824/2/L3... "While future observations will determine the strength of the constraints from Eri II, existing data from Eri II and from the sample of compact ultra-faint dwarfs appear sufficient to rule out dark matter composed exclusively of MACHOs for all masses above ~10e−7 mass of the Sun." And if your definition of the "consensus" is 100.0000% then I do consider it useless. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus If you use Merriam-Webster's: "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned" then yes, there is a consensus because "most" begins for me at "more than 60%." And I accept only those that are actually "in the field" and not those that studied something completely different but "have a strong opinion." Sorry, that's automatically useless. I know personally the Ph.Ds who believe nonsense as soon as they are out of the area they have researched personally. It's simply a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect as in "I was successful while studying X my whole life and therefore I believe I can 'understand' Y better than those who studied Y their whole life." And I'm talking here only about the natural sciences.