I'm not sure we're having a productive conversation. Perhaps I've been unclear, but I didn't say this was a "devastating critique of all science". I said that I

I'm not sure we're having a productive conversation. Perhaps I've been unclear, but I didn't say this was a "devastating critique of all science". I said that I thought my field was "for the most part [...] okay" and I think that's true for science broadly. My main point is that peer review as currently practiced is not as good at quality control as you seem to believe. My link was just one example. As I indicated, I don't have time to give more examples, and I didn't expect to convince you. I think few academics are actively looking for errors, so unless you are, you may not notice them as often as I have. > I can only assume that very few people were relying on this stupid model, since the flaw wasn’t noticed for decades. There are quite a few papers that directly use the criticized model, from the 90s until recently. It does seem that many people blindly accepted a clearly wrong model. With that being said, the other model in the paper is responsible for most of the citations. > You are also unhappy that you can’t get a response from the first author [...] I’m not sure quite what result you want from this? The first author is the senior author here. (The conference paper version does not have the other two authors.) I contacted them because if I'm wrong, I wanted them to tell me how so that I could avoid making a fool of myself in my paper. I don't want their paper to be retracted, though a notice that it has severe errors would be helpful to readers.