This article reminds me of a thought I have had for sometime. An arguable perspective is that scientists’ mistakes outweighs the mistakes of their detractors. Detractors such as politicians for instance. These detractors make outlandish statements that are far less checked. How sturdy is the system for keeping these detractors straight and faithful to fact-based arguments? The system scientists have in place is an old tradition of publishing articles that are not just subjected to keen analysis by their peers, but also left for the entire community to read and respond to post publication. The system for these detractors is too weak.
