timr: Second, this type of critique is pushing hard on a straw man. The implicit assumption is that each paper is a stand-alone morsel of truth, and that the p

timr: Second, this type of critique is pushing hard on a straw man. The implicit assumption is that each paper is a stand-alone morsel of truth, and that the peer-review process somehow guarantees a paper's claims. This is not the case, and no scientist believes it to be true...The "skeptics" have it wrong, not because they're incorrect about human nature, but because they're attacking a fictional vision of science that exists only in their minds. The article: The concept of “peer review” is increasingly being treated in the popular discourse as synonymous with “the findings were reproduced and proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.” This is never what peer review was intended to accomplish. Peer review functions largely to catch trivial mistakes and to filter out the loons. It does not confirm or refute a paper’s findings. Indeed, many scientific frauds have passed easily through peer review because the scammers knew what information the reviewers needed to see.