> Science is not based on consensus seeking.

No, but as non-experts in a given field, the best information we have to go on is the consensus among scientists who are experts in the field.

Certainly this isn't a perfect metric, and consensus-smashing evidence sometimes comes to light, but unless and until that happens, we should assume that the people who study this sort of thing as their life's work are probably more correct than we are.

David is this you?

Actually it is exactly based on hypotheses that are verified.

I think the idea here is that the choice on which hypothesis to verify is based on the risk assessment of the scientist whose goal is to optimize successful results and hence better theories are more likely to surface. In this way one does not need to form a consensus around the theory but instead make consensus on what constitutes a successful result.

Ideally this would be true, but funding agencies are already preloaded with implicit asssumptions what constitutes a scientific progress.

And how do you verify hypothesis? What is the process to do that?

I assume this is a rhetorical question, since you are perfectly capable of doing a search for "the scientific method" on your own.

MWI has not led to any verifiably-correct predictions, has it? At least not any that other interpretations can also predict, and have other, better properties.

You use the hypotheses to make predictions and design experiments. Then you carry those out and see if they support the hypothesis.

Or is this one of those rhetorical questions?

Okay. I have a hypothesis that the rain is controlled by a god called Ringo. If you pray to Ringo and he listens to your prayer it will rain in next 24 hours. If he doesn't listen it won't rain. You can also test this experimentally by praying and observing the outcomes.