> Seeing how a lot of peer-reviewed science is based on improper methodology, bad analysis, false data and buggy code, maybe it would be better to question ever

> Seeing how a lot of peer-reviewed science is based on improper methodology, bad analysis, false data and buggy code, maybe it would be better to question everything. Peer-review isn't perfect, but it is still a more reliable source of information than (e.g) Reddit At least retraction is a thing – it doesn't happen as often as it should, but sometimes bad papers do get retracted, and there is a process people can use to challenge work they think should not have been published. Also, many journal databases have a "Cited by" feature, and so you can always read papers/letters-to-the-editor/etc responding to it - often, if research is particularly bad, sooner or later someone else will publish a criticism of it