I am not saying that all peer reviewed studies are perfect because they aren't, but I don't understand this line of thought when referring to multiple peer reviewed studies saying similar things. Researchers love proving other researchers wrong. It's really difficult to push an agenda when a bunch of people with that mindset are tasked with scrutinizing your work.
Who are the peers? A lot of studies can be done to prove exactly what the person wants. If I was to do a peer review study on the economy would you believe the results and just accept I was right about my conclusion?
If it was peer reviewed I would certainly entertain the idea that you were right about your conclusion, particularly if you had been published in something like AER or if there were several other studies showing similar conclusions. From first hand experience I can tell you that conference papers (which are not scrutinized on near the level of academic journal papers) are reviewed by a random selection of experts in relevant fields (from an established pool). I am sure there are some differences from journal to journal in the actual process, but I believe it's similar, but with a higher bar for being published. Obviously some journals are higher quality than others, but it's pretty easy to find good rankings for most fields.
Peer Review isn't just about the result. It's about everything. The assertations, the assumptions, the work, the data, and the result. Any and all of it can be challenged by other people also showing their assertations, assumptions, work, data, and results. Science isn't a hegemony its an established system of searching for answers and continuously challenging them. It's not magic, its not a religion, its a well defined and transparent process that even you can take part of.
I am not saying a study can't be fudged, but I am saying that it's difficult to get it published anywhere where it will be taken seriously if it is fudged. Not impossible, but not easy.
You make a name by demonstrating something is wrong. There is every incentive to do it if you can. This process is not ever exactly or completely right and sometimes gets things wrong for awhile, but it is a whole lot closer to whatever reality is than any other method we have. Over time, it gives a clearer picture. Dogma and true ideology doesn't have the designed falsification system so they will not keep up. The Catholic Church or the mullahs are not going to discover any new breakthroughs on their holy texts. They can't increase understanding of the physical world beyond what was written a long time ago by people who thought semen came from the spine.
So proving science wrong happens yet when scientists make an assertion about something in the now we should believe them even though eventually they might be wrong. It's wild.
Yes... You can go look at the entire process they used to come to their conclusions. Then you can challenge any of it by putting forth you own claim and evidence, and then someone else can challenge your claim and so on and so forth.
A lot of that proving wrong is done before work is ever published. That said, one is saying blindly believe everything, but if I base my belief on something on 10 peer reviewed research studies, then yeah my belief is absolutely more valid than someone who professes the opposite based on nothing more than feeling.
If something is withheld it can't be science because it can't be reviewed. So yes, all science is transparent.
What about the research of oxy not being addictive? How did that turn out? I believe that research was published in one of the most prestigious journals out there. Why wasn't it proved wrong before all that was released and thousands died?
No. What is the only thing that has EVER, EVER proven science wrong? There is only 1 thing. Science. So to counter an assertion, you would still use science. It is fine to not be convinced of something. It is another thing entirely to assert something is definitely wrong but have nothing to demonstrate or support that.
