Both of you have a point (the same point I guess). Errors will occur in both the presentation and review process for a multitude of reasons. It will always happen.

But, the current system is the best we have and probably one of the best we can get. At least from what I have been exposed too.

Lets not forget that the scientific community is not just in the business of making papers. There are physical realities we are dealing with; not just papers but results are what is important. If your results can't be replicated the research is useless; proving other people wrong is the point of peer review. One must show that their models or processes work and work consistently otherwise it gets the boot.

Furthermore, one should take everything they read critically checking facts, numbers,ect. Don't take this a relitviest argment.

Truth does exist.

There does exist things that are real.

This is a reality.

We can trust science to make good prediction once vetted. If the predictions don't pan out we must change our modes.

The whole process is coming under scrutiny, because of the climate predictions, and questions about drug safety. When I was a youth, most science and medicine was blindly accepted, but that proved to be a mistake. Of course back in the day, newspapers and a couple of TV channels was about it for most people. Trade/professional journals weren't widely available, and nobody cared to read them anyway.
The internet has changed the world in many ways... some of them good.;)

Back then there wasn't nearly as much money in science/medicine either. It was safer to accept because there was less reason for anyone to forge it.

And less PhD types unemployed.

Yeah, they were still being paid in grain and hogs. ;)

Hey, I represent that.:p:

ahuh. :)