Building a bullshit detector is easy. Building one with a low false positive rate is hard. A low false positive rate is also extremely important because in many

Building a bullshit detector is easy. Building one with a low false positive rate is hard. A low false positive rate is also extremely important because in many fields truly novel research findings are often dismissed and it takes a generation for them to become accepted. See for example quasicrystals. Given how hard making new discoveries is, and the fact that the peer review process is already stacked against new discoveries (as opposed to follow ons), I don't think this is a good idea for many fields. On the other hand, if you know an experimental methodology is flawed, then you can pretty much throw out all that research since the scientist didn't do the right experiment or they didn't do it with enough power (social sciences I"m looking at you).