It's always a shame when the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented as how reality works. Most of the perceived weirdness of QM comes from the leaps of faith required to make the Copenhagen interpretation work.
If instead you mean "by what process are they further away from consensus": I would suggest that the recent surge of research in quantum information theory has stimulated a greater interest in foundational issues, which in turn has led to an invigoration of the interpretations debate.
In short Copenhagen still (sadly) rules the day, followed by many worlds and QIT.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.2719
http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4646
In both cases, de-Broglie Bohm interpretations ruled the day. As the abstract of the latter paper states:
> ...the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of "quantum foundations", sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues than the already-significant amount revealed in the earlier poll.
The Copenhagen interpretation makes a leap of faith with the Born Rule as it is based on Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics. The work of t'Hooft is a more modern alternative for ensembles where the outcome is stochastic, rather than probabilistic. Photosynthesis has that property, as do many other enzymatic systems.
DeBroglie himself states that matter waves propagate according to a defined distribution; whereas Copehagen interprets that they are probabilistically distributed. In the former case there is a stochastic process, whereas it is only a random process in the latter case.
The difference in ontology being that deBroglie-Bohm is deterministic, i.e. particles have definite positions of which we are merely ignorant, whereas "Copenhagen" is (usually) non-realist, i.e. it is not meaningful to talk about the positions of particles until the moment we measure it.
That is also the difference between the theories of DeBroglie and Bohm, the former is stochastic while the latter is deterministic. Copenhagen theories describe the positions of particles probabilitistically; and the word 'measure' is not being used in the precise mathematical way that it should be. A better translation from Danish would be 'convolute'.
The thing to remember is that when one writes about physics which are centuries old, one must be historiographically consistent. If there is a hyphen between two names for a theory, such that one name is being attributed posthumously; then the student should infer the most recent name is making some error in translation.
When you separate DeBroglie and Bohm, on the basis of their lack of real cooperation, then it is clear to see who was ahead of their time. Bohm is abusing statistical terms in his translations from French, and the meaning of those words is an extremely important detail in the context of Quantum Information Theory. John Von Neumann was contemporaneously working in that context, but it was classified until recent times.
The Born rule was introduced in Born's paper on description of a scattering experiment with help of the \psi function that is a solution of Schroedinger's equation. Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics had nothing to do with it.
Thermodynamics and Linear Algebra have gotten more advanced, since then.
And the reason this is cool is because when you put everyday objects in situations like that stated above, they exhibit quantum interference and everything else.
To ask somebody what interpretation they prefer is akin to asking a mathematician how they interpret the reality of ZFC they prefer. It's interesting, but ultimately pointless, because it has more to do with our ability to interpret than with the real meaning of the statements. To that end, Copenhagen makes the important point - "Shut up and calculate".
No, it doesn't. It adds a few assumptions on top of that. That's the point of the whole debate. To be fair, the many-worlds interpretation also does that.
We're humans, we can't understand equations without knowing what they "mean."
Rather than what it is: our best model.
The Copenhagen interpretation? Not so much. It's an interpretation. The actual physics is in the equations. I can believe the equations without believing the Copenhagen interpretation, or any interpretation.