Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I can publish a paper with results I think are wrong, but it's entirely possible that follow up studies confirm it was

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. I can publish a paper with results I think are wrong, but it's entirely possible that follow up studies confirm it was accidentally correct. While this is improbable in general, if we restrict ourselves to publishing claims that are sufficiently plausible that people in the field would accept them as a corner stone paper, then there is a very decent chance it sounds plausible because it's true. Even if I test the claim myself before publishing to confirm it's false, I may have made an error. Possibly repeatedly publishing bogus papers in a certain manner might be able to confidently weed out poor academic hygeine, but it's not a trivial thing.