This model provides a way to ensure that hypotheses that most scientists disagree with continue to be published. Is that really what we want, though? When a hypothesis turns out to be false, it's good that a consensus forms on this fact.
Think about it this way: if a hypothesis comes along which is counter to the work you've been doing for god knows how many years, are you really going to agree with it (publicly). This new idea threatens your career, so you do everything possible to get rid of it. The new system tries to keep around these new ideas so that they can be evaluated multiple times, as the people doing the evaluation change.
That's just one persons experience though, I have come across proud professors (and reviewers of my own papers) who seem to let pride come before professionalism.
Peer review should also be blind. Too often a famous name can get papers published that would not be published otherwise.
Peer review should also be blind. Too often a famous name can get papers published that would not be published otherwise.
Fully agree, although that only solves the problem of pushing through papers based on researcher merit (not the topic of rejecting papers on the basis of conflict with your own agenda)
As such, both sides of an argument need to be explored and presented.
It's an essential part of science for scientists to question their own beliefs - if you do not know what method you would use to prove the opposite, your method of proving your hypothesis is probably inadequate.