I'd add a last point that a scientific paper (or a particular experimental result) is not sufficient for 'science'. Citing a paper as either a truth or discover

I'd add a last point that a scientific paper (or a particular experimental result) is not sufficient for 'science'. Citing a paper as either a truth or discovery is a disingenuous. The endeavour of science gets at a kind of consensus by having lots of papers, lots of experiments, lots of additional layers of experiments build on each other. And yes it's annoying to realize a given paper is misleading, has errors, or is even wrong - but that annoyance and workarounds are part of the scientific process. It's actually fairly rare for an experiment or paper to be strong enough to stand completely on its own as a singular, thorough, and completed discovery. If you've been part of the scientific field you know that it yet takes years after even a good publication for the knowledge to accrete to the greater scientific body. Some of the best advice I got was to spend a lot more time than one might want to really come up with an experimental design that avoided a statistical outcome and instead probed at an either/or mechanism. It's not always possible, but when it is, it can be a powerful reply to fighting statistical battles (see the Michelson-Morely experiment for a classic example). Further careers, families, reputations, humans are also part of that scientific process, which together with the above require and admit some deviation from perfect efficiency. Which we as a society should demand be okay.