> Everybody's got their brains and knives out to find any and all flaws in a paper to demolish it
Okay, what are the flaws then? Enough hand-waving, let's talk actual issues.
Yes it is, otherwise the whole scientific method falls flat on its face. If you cannot expect that a person will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of doing experiments and having people write up their research? If you cannot expect that a group of people will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of peer review? If you cannot expect that the community of scientists will identify valid and invalid ideas, what's the point of doing science?
On what basis do you, personally, believe that the earth moves around the sun? For me, I believe it because the scientific community accepts it. Do you believe that it is at least possible that the sun really does move around the earth and the scientific community happens to be wrong?
What do you believe the speed of light to be? Did you just read it in a textbook? Who published the textbook? How did they know?
That said, yes, the process of human evaluation is very slow and very much prone to errors. But it fundamentally works.
> For me, I believe it because the scientific community accepts it.
There should be a much stronger reason: that the evidence is available, and not only has it been analyzed by other people, but it should have been analyzed by you as well. If we just accept that others have done the analysis, this is how major mistakes stay undiscovered for decades. (See the problem of the phantom reference.)
> Who published the textbook? How did they know?
Yes, we have to trust that most people are acting competently and with good intentions, because it's physically and emotionally impossible to investigate everything, but for no other reason. We should do our best to look in to every claim, especially ones that seem suspicious, because that diligence is what keeps science moving forward.
> the process of human evaluation is very slow and very much prone to errors. But it fundamentally works.
I agree, but that only holds true if people are actually doing the work of performing those evaluations.
This is nonsense. I'd love to, but I haven't literally dedicated my entire life to this specific topic as so many have, I don't believe I am smarter than the average scientist, I don't believe I can find flaws that the average scientist would have found, and I don't have enough time to test every single hypothesis that's accepted by the scientific community and makes its way into my life. I'm just going to do what most scientists do and focus on what I enjoy doing, and if that doesn't result in me completely revolutionizing physics so be it.
This "epistemological DIY" really only works for you if 1) you want to limit yourself to "proving" that apples and feathers fall at the same speed using highschool mechanics or 2) you're extremely arrogant and/or delusional.
Otherwise we end up with situations like this, where something is plainly obvious to physicists but somehow never makes its way into an epidemiologist’s brain. [1]
[1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwu...
The article highlights a far more difficult problem, which is to get people who are knowledgeable in area A which happens to interface with area B to trust those who are experts in area B. Which is precisely the opposite of what happens when someone who isn't knowlegeable enough follows your advice and is unable to notice their own errors in interpretation and understanding.
So yeah, I'd rather stick to trusting the experts (in their respective areas) 99% of the time.
> someone who isn't knowlegeable enough follows your advice and is unable to notice their own errors in interpretation and understanding
This happens even with experts in their own fields. That's why it is supposed to be the beginning of a dialogue between the reader and the writers, not a research project that happens in a vacuum. Science is a collaborative effort.