I can't help but feel like this is a fundamental definition problem. Science is not actually distinct from consensus forming. Science does not work with raw facts, it forms models based off human observations which are themselves a kind of consensus.
Bayesian research is just more honest about what's already the case.
I wouldn't agree, at any given time there is a lot of disagreement and non-consensus in given fields. So we need to new research to gather additional evidence. If every research paper tried to argue for a particular prior and posterior, rather than just gathering evidence, we would never make progress toward consensus either...
> I wouldn't agree, at any given time there is a lot of disagreement and non-consensus in given fields.
That's precisely my point. The act of presenting and refining research IS the act of building that consensus.
My statement here is not a novel thought. It's pretty much the modern philosophy of science for over a decade.
> So we need to new research to gather additional evidence.
This is simply data gathering though. Every approach starts here. I'm not sure why you suggest that people using Bayesian approaches to analysis are somehow forbidden from being informed by data (or informing priors by data).
That's exactly the same process folks use when selecting non-bayesian models. They don't spring from absolute truth, they're selected as well.
> If every research paper tried to argue for a particular prior and posterior
Given the replication crisis that's in part due to mis-application of existing models along with a lack of rigor in data collection, having research focus more tightly on the methodology for presenting data and conclusions doesn't seem like a bad outcome at all.
Bayesian research is just more honest about what's already the case.