this statement doesn't make any sense.
"far too often peer review is simply preaching to the group-think choir."
Peer review simply means someone that understands the material looked it over for originality, completeness of reference, sound logic, supported conclusions and appropriateness for the particular publication. It is never a process that includes "group think".
" My experience with the science departments at Universities"
What are those depts and what is your experience with those science depts?
You appear to understand how everything is SUPPOSED to work. That's nice. I read it in 5th grade and understood it then. And for the record, I think it should work that way too.
But what I know, is that grant money is often given in the same way that the National Endowment of the Arts decides what is worthy.
But this is all really beside the point. My original post concerned my unwillingness to bet the farm on a particular scientific consensus, when I think that the scientists don't have enough evidence to be presenting their views as public guidance. I know that "undisputed" and "somewhat possible" can both accurately describe the same theory (back to my marble analogy). I really can't see how anyone remotely dedicated to science could have a problem with that.