This is a misunderstanding of the role of peer review. The point is not to prove that a paper is correct, the point is to ensure a minimum level of quality. You are entirely right that most reviewers cannot hope to reproduce the results presented, and very often for very good reasons. If I write 3 proposals over the course of a year to get some beam line on a neutron source, it is completely unrealistic to expect a referee to have the same level of commitment.
I think this hints at a more profound problem, which is that a lot of studies are not replicated. This is where the robustness of a scientific result comes from: anybody can make the same observation and reach the same conclusions under the same conditions. This is the real test, not whether you convinced 3 or 5 referees.
The real value of an article is not in whether it was peer reviewed (though the absence of peer review is a red flag). Instead, it is in whether different people confirmed its main results over the years that follow publication.
https://blog.plan99.net/replication-studies-cant-fix-science...
Merely replicating a study doesn't tell you anything about whether the claims are correct, although failure to replicate can be a signal that the claims probably aren't correct.
Maybe people could learn about what peer review is before posting their strong feelings about it? The purpose certainly isn't to replicate people's experiments, that happens after publication and not by referees. One of a reviewer's duties is to look at whether the study could be replicated given the included information. That is a very different thing.
Also, just because something has made it past peer review also doesn't mean it isn't controversial in the field.
This is my academic profile https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=bxn78bkAAAAJ&hl=en
What he is saying is that peer review is treated by academia as a close to gold standard, when it's really more like a bronze standard. It's a bit like finding a software company that exclusively uses volunteer post-commit code review with no unit tests or static typing, and in which the only testing process is to push to production and see if anyone inside the company complains.
It's not useless as a concept, and it's generally better to have a paper that's reviewed than one that isn't unless the field has been captured by ideologues. But there are so many common problems it can't fix, not even in principle.
There is a massive incentive to publish. Inflate the value, inflate the results, and stretch out projects to multiple smaller papers, fake results to make it seem important. This is lazy and fast, and can be caught by a stricter review and scrutiny.
Papers that are properly done all the way through, but with faked data meant to push an agenda, can be disproven by counter research.
Genuine mistakes, logical errors, and other oversights are even more common than that. For all the issues it has, peer review is quite good at catching the things that it's intended to catch.
Research gets cited constantly in public debates and is used for policy decisions, so the public should be able to quickly separate the good from the bad, the "maybe this is true" from the "this is empirically proven."
The public has lost a lot of trust in Science because research papers have been used to push political agendas, which can then never be questioned because doing so means arguing with a supposed peer-reviewed scientific consensus.
Replication and meta-analysis are an important part of this.
Most scientists are in fact very conservative with how they claim their results - less so university PR departments and “study shows” clickbaiters.
Instead I got PIs happy to say that weak evidence "proved" their theory and to try suppress evidence that negatively impacted "fundablity". The most successful scientists I worked with were the ones who always talked like a PR puff piece.
I did theoretical physics (no money) and my experience totally matches what the other person described.
The public has lost trust in science because 10 to 30% of it is scientifically illiterate [1]. (Tens of millions of American adults are literally illiterate [2].)
That's what lets activists and politicians cherrypick bad science that supports their position or cast a scientific consensus as unquestionable.
[1] https://carsey.unh.edu/publication/conspiracy-vs-science-sur...
Obviously reproducing results as part of peer review is not a workable (or even coherent) solution. I don't pretend to have any idea what a solution might be. The obvious issue is that academic publications were never intended as political tools and should not be made into that.
On several occasions I've had interactions with laymen where I found myself thinking "if only you hadn't had access to pubmed and way too much motivation we'd both be better off right now" yet I firmly believe that free and open access to information is a huge net benefit to society on the whole.
It is not, and it cannot be. It is unrealistic to expect a referee working in their free time to confirm studies that often cost millions of dollars. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what peer review is and why it is useful in popular or heavy vulgarised science.
Politicians, journalists, and university press offices are guilty of this, and they are those abusing peer review to give some studies more weight than they deserve.