Indeed. It’s a hard balance. I think peer review _generally_ works well enough and it’s necessary because the Sciences are expensive and somebody besides money coming in from new University students supporting University Science Depts needs to support their ongoing efforts.
So business and government interests tie into it… and as nice as pure science would be… somebody has to pay for it all.
And… people who pay… usually want things to go a little more their way. That’s where competing in the Sciences is _very_ useful because hopefully the good stuff comes out somewhere between it all. And I believe it does.
I think this is why I’m critical of excessive agreement among Science advocates.
Consistency is a red-flag warning to me, wherever it’s coming from. Why is there such consistency? Is consistency truth? Sometimes it is. But when there’s lack of dissenting opinions, I get cautious.
It doesn’t mean consistency means something bad is going on. But I try to scrutinize excessive consistency very carefully just the same.
Still I think that, in general, the process works well enough.
I think that’s what keeps me loving Science and all the odd things it takes to make it work: When it works, it works GREAT! But as fellow Science enthusiasts it’s up to us to stay educated and discerning and really question what comes our way. They may have the ability to do the Science but it’s our job to decide whether it’s worth accepting.
But skepticism is my bias smile emoticon
Good good. My focus tends to be on the hypothesis/conclusion pair and sample size. If I see small sample size, I get skeptical and if the hypothesis/conclusion seems off, I look at competing ideas as well as the scientists who did the Science to see if there’s something hiding in there.