[rustbucket]

Park's article mentions peer review as a way for judges to assess scientific truth. Articles that have been peer reviewed probably do in general contain better science than those that have not undergone the process.

However, just because an article has passed peer review doesn't mean it is correct or that unpeer-reviewed counter evidence by other scientists is necessarily incorrect (it may simply have not undergone peer review yet). Richard Feynman zeroed in on O-ring failure as a cause of the Challenger disaster -- was this incorrect because it had not been peer reviewed?

Peer review can depend in part on the beliefs and prejudices of the reviewers and how rigorous the policies of the journal in which an article is published. For example, if an article in favor of creation science is sent only to creationists for peer review, it would likely pass. If the same article were sent to evolutionists, it would likely fail. That is an extreme example, but the same sorts of personal passions exist in scientific controversies (creation science isn't science).

Peer-reviewed repeat experiments, alternate experiments, and additional data by other scientists are perhaps better ways of establishing scientific truth than peer review of one article alone.

[Youngblood]

Peer-reviewed repeat experiments, alternate experiments, and additional data by other scientists are perhaps better ways of establishing scientific truth than peer review of one article alone.

Obviously! Isn't this the way it works?

If someone has a new idea, the burden of proof is on them. If the conclusions are sound, they'll attract support and inspire further research.