[kkylin]

> One thing I'd have HN consider though is that the peer review process was never intended as a sufficiently strong filter to ensure that bad science was never published in the first place.

In addition, in most fields of science, refereeing is also not meant to guarantee correctness -- even good research can turn out to be wrong, and conversely some mistakes are very instructive. I think it's generally more accurate to view published journal articles as part of an on-going conversation, rather than as a lasting record of scientific truth [0]. This is not to say that scientists should not do the best they can to ascertain correctness, nor that they should not look for alternate explanations. But one should look at published work as what it is -- the best one can conclude after X years of work (whatever X is).

[0] Unfortunately, it's often hard for outsiders to jump into these conversations, i part because journal papers are almost invariably aimed at others who are already know the context. But that's a discussion for another time.