It's farcical. The Royal Societies motto is "take nobody's word for it", yet this particular author is so keen on the idea that science is people agreeing with each other that the highlighted research on her home page is a paper from nearly ten years ago titled "CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study."

What exactly is a "consensus study"?

"Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services"

"These responses [from experts] were synthesised by the first two authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus ... The resulting consensus statement is reported here"

This is what she thinks of as her best scientific work! It's not even science at all, just emailing a bunch of people trying to get them to agree to things and anytime someone doesn't agree she "synthesizes" them out of the picture.

No wonder she hates Musk. The Royal Society is far better off without people like this. It's not like Musk would care if it booted him out anyway!

https://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/people/dorothy-bishop

This is called Argument from authority and is a logical fallacy.

To steal a good part from wikipedia: Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[13][14][15] as authority has no place in science.[14][25][26] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else.