So finally that brings us to one more idea: If scientists judge evidence collectively, this has led historians to focus on the question of consensus, and to say that at the end of the day, what science is, what scientific knowledge is, is the consensus of the scientific experts who through this process of organized scrutiny, collective scrutiny, have judged the evidence and come to a conclusion about it, either yea or nay.
To nas u konačnici vodi do sljedećeg: Ako znanstvenici  kolektivno prosuđuju dokaze, to dovodi povjesničare na pitanje postojanja konsenzusa, a na kraju i tvrdnje da je znanost, i znanstvena spoznaja jednoglasna odluka znanstvenih stručnjaka, koji kroz proces temeljitog proučavanja, zajedničkog promatranja, procjenjuju dokaze i dolaze do zaključka o tome je li nešto jest ili nije.