Not particularly reliably. Peer review by people who actually know what they are doing is going to beat my puny brain 99% of the time.
In any case, I wouldn't count on that. Recent meta-studies (if we are to at least believe those) show that a majority of scientific papers are non verifiable and non reproducible BS, contain fabrications and alterations, etc -- and that's talking about the "hard sciences". And having been involved with researchers, I don't doubt that at all.
E.g:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-re...
and:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21588057-scientists-t...
This is the "Experts were wrong before" dodge, which conveniently ignores how often individuals are wrong.