> But you should also remember that "science" doesn't guarantee that _every_ paper is good. That's correct and I agree. Actual Science doesn't require trust. A

> But you should also remember that "science" doesn't guarantee that _every_ paper is good. That's correct and I agree. Actual Science doesn't require trust. As you aptly pointed out it's excellent at weeding out crap most of the time. The issue is the academic politics involved in it make it harder to determine if the process is weakened. The problem of course comes when a major result was not reviewed appropriately and it becomes the standard until someone is brave enough to write another paper failing to reproduce it. That's the scary thing - even if someone is brave enough to write a paper saying its non-reproducible they still have to get through the review committee to have their voice heard. Sure, they could post to Arxiv or a blog if all else fails...but none of that will ever get picked up where it is needed most. > There will always be an army of people "trusting the science" (the authority, really) This is really the crux of it. It's appeal to authority. Even higher order thinking people (that is, those outside pop-sci nonsense) fall victim to this because it's human nature. The authority is also how mediocre work gets past reviewers by attaching a name to it.