There's always something new to ask:
Does the fact that 'peer review' in the scientific community is so prone to manipulation cause you to be less religious in your acceptance of the 'new' revelations about evolution that get printed in the latest journals?
For instance, I have an enormously healthy skepticism about what I read in religious journals, which must undergo 'peer review'. Do you read science journals with the same skepticism? Or do you receive it as gospel?
That's the root rationale for my probing posts, whether it appeared evident, or not.
Peer review is ultimately self correcting. It's not a single person or group doing the review, it's various people and groups throughout the community. That's why methodology makes up so much of a published paper; numerous other people will be replicating your research to determine if your conclusions are accurate. Sure, one or two folks might be in on a conspiracy to further some questionable findings, but it will eventually be discovered.
I am not religious about anything. Indeed, as far as science goes, I frequently entertain iconoclastic ideas and take very little on face value. FWIW, I often like to provoke discussion just because I want to debate ideas, even if I'm not entirely sold myself on a POV I choose to argue (that's not what I'm doing here, though).
Peer review is what it is: peer review. It is not some omniscient automaton minutely cross-checking every detail of every account. It is one of several 'checks and balances' designed to ensure validity over the long run. Just like a peer reviewer for a history tract cannot revisit every citation to confirm accuracy or check for plagiarism, a peer reviewer for a science treatise doesn't repeat the study himself.
To some extent, the peer reviewer inevitably must rely on the reputation of the researcher, whatever the field, because everything can't be done in duplicate and triplicate. An undergraduate has less leeway to 'get away with things' than does a doctoral candidate than does a tenured professor. You get the idea. Well, you probably don't, but whatever. (I say that because I doubt you want to get the idea.)
For instance, I have an enormously healthy skepticism about what I read in religious journals, which must undergo 'peer review'. Do you read science journals with the same skepticism? Or do you receive it as gospel?
I receive nothing as "gospel"... If you had followed my posts over the years on FR, you would probably not doubt that. In fact, I like to have my ideas challenged as forcefully as possible, because it compels me to reevaluate them and improve the accuracy of my world view.
FWIW, I do find it disconcerting that this was not uncovered earlier. The system did fail even if the failure has now been corrected.
And I will give you a concrete example. About a month or so ago I was arguing quite forcefully in support of the single-origin 'out of Africa' model of Homo sapiens evolution. Now, in light of some articles I've just read the past couple days, I have provisionally suspended my acceptance of that to reconsider the multiregional hypothesis. That doesn't mean I've rejected the former. It means that my confidence level is somewhat diminished and I intend to revisit alternative viewpoints whenever I have the opportunity.
"Do you read science journals with the same skepticism? Or do you receive it as gospel? "
This one I can answer, honestly and with personal experience. If the author is a person of integrity and known to do good stuff, you normally accept it, especially if it is not in your particular area of expertise. There is always the possibility that even Dr. So-and-so can screw up so keep your eyes open (I once won an argument with a Nobel Prize winner - a lot of good it did me).
If it is in your particular area of expertise, you pick the paper apart with forceps and question everything, secretly hoping you'll find a "gotcha", especially if he is a close competitor. This competition really keeps us on our toes and generally makes scientific prose (really awful stuff) very clear. An ambiguous result won't get past the editors of the best journals.