> Could one create a proof of pseudo-science, by injecting a faked fundamental corner stone paper, that becomes proof by inheritance that a full field is rotten

> Could one create a proof of pseudo-science, by injecting a faked fundamental corner stone paper, that becomes proof by inheritance that a full field is rotten? I don't think there's any doubt that pseudoscience exists, even amongst the most optimistic of scientists. The problem is identifying what is bad science vs what is good. The fact that I can send this from a small phone from a parking lot is proof that someone did good science at some point in time. Or that I've seen therapies like CBT turn someone who was struggling mentally on a daily basis to thrive, or that I've seen valve replacement surgery give someone years of great life after a "six months to live diagnosis" -- all show that there is good science. I think we almost need a "discipline" of people who validate scientific results, and people should be held accountable for results that validate or don't. Peer review is great. It's not a farce (I've gotten some incredible feedback on papers from it), but it is also extremely limited by design. We need more.