"scientific consensus" That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation

"scientific consensus" That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation can upend an entire way of understanding the world. Compare the following two statements: "We consulted with the scientific community. Sound science shows that vaccines save many lives, not just the ones being vaccinated. Decades of history have not turned up any significant risks. Therefore, we recommend local schools give vaccines to nearly all students. We've set up a fund to help administer this for schools that need it, and resources for homeschooled children." Versus: "Our favorite professors determined that vaccines are good, so we're going to inject every kid in the country, including yours. There's nothing you can do about it because you are not a Ph.D.". With phrases like "scientific consensus", people hear more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the phrase is used to essentially sign a blank check, where the original claim can be stretched far into the political realm by whoever is speaking.