Definitely. Scientists can't function (literally aren't working at the professional level yet) unless they can read critically. The scientific literature is ful

Definitely. Scientists can't function (literally aren't working at the professional level yet) unless they can read critically. The scientific literature is full of holes, mistakes, irrelevant junk, work that the authors don't even realize is 40 years out of date ... all kinds of nonsense. That's always been the case, and it works fine. The people who insist that anything "peer reviewed" * must be / needs to be gospel are outside science, almost by definition. A few have credentials but are not functioning professionals; some see themselves as lay champions of science; others see themselves as wise lay critics of science. None of them have almost anything relevant to say about how science is doing, because they literally don't know what's under the hood. *OMG