[Jan454]

Maybe we just should not care? In the end, if someone claims sth., she always has to give proof. If da Prof. Prof. Dr. Dr. super plus claims sth. without proof, and a pink hair colored teenager claims sth. with proof, everyone _should_ believe the teen (actually believing the proof, not the person). Sadly thats not the case, lots of people still believe "eminence based proof" instead of "evidence based proof".

[Bootvis]

That works nicely for maths but any subject that requires a non trivial amount of data gathering needs to be build on a certain amount of trust.

[Jan454]

which comes from peer-review and other scientists verifying it.

.. there are too many Prof. Dr. Dr. that did not "cheat" but still claim covid isn't real .. so the title really doesn't mean anything at all to me .. also having studied myself seeing what kind of idiots also got their exams .. it's maybe just a proof they can 'write' and 'read', but even believing this would proof 'understanding' is a big overestimation of the title itself ..

[PeterisP]

Peer review is about relevance, methodology and the appriopriateness of your conclusions given your observations as you describe them.

Peer review does not even attempt to control for fabricated experimental results or other data.

[mhh__]

Peer review (or at least naive peer review) still requires an element of good faith https://youtu.be/wLlA1w4OZWQ

[Bootvis]

In addition to the sibling comment, the replication crisis shows that this mechanic isn't working as well as you hope it would.