Evidence is the arbitration. Consensus is the agreement on the best explanation for the evidence. New contrary evidence will overturn the consensus, as I have explained several times in this thread.
Ah, you're still sticking with your unmitigated stupidity of saying that evidence can be contrary to evidence, eh? What would you say is "the arbitration" between evidence that you say is contrary to evidence, on the one hand, and the evidence to which you say it is contrary, on the other?
"the best explanation for the evidence"?? What? You don't consider evidence, itself, to be explanation? You consider evidence something in need of explanation?
Take a look at the first couple of things that were presented when I googled "explanation":
- "a statement or account that makes something clear": So, when you say "explanation for the evidence", by "evidence", do you mean something that is not clear--something that needs to be made clear?
- "a reason or justification given for an action or belief": Does this latter item not make out evidence and explanation to be one and the same? In other words, by your phrase, "explanation for the evidence", are you not saying "[evidence] for the evidence" and "explanation for the [explanation]"?
Of course, you've entirely cowered away from all the questions I've asked you, thus far, concerning the nature of evidence, and you're not going to do otherwise, here. This is because, whenever you call something "evidence", and whenever you call something "not evidence", you're speaking wholly out of sheer whimsy, with absolutely no rhyme nor reason to what you're saying. Purely emotive on your part--wholly motivated by your likes and your dislikes. So much for the phony-balogna "lack of bias" and "objectivity" of the joke you call "the scientific method".