Noezoom manages to miss the point:
If you are aware of how little actual editing and fact-checking newspaper editors do… then this should shake the faith of all of those who believe so firmly in the religion of science.
newspaper editors do not have the authority to pass law in the religion of science (unless you’re defining the faithful as only those who casually follow scientific endeavors through common media outlets).
if anything, corrections and retractions should affirm faith in science because it shows that the self-correcting mechanisms are working.
No, but editors of scientific journals do and the New York Times stated that “journal editors are like newspaper editors” in that they simply don’t do any independent investigation of the submitted studies any more than a newspaper editor will go and interview the subjects of a submitted story.
The corrections and retractions don’t show that the self-correcting mechanisms are working, indeed, they show that the errors and falsehoods are so rampant and obvious that those outside the system are noticing them and calling attention to them. This is like arguing that the pedophile priest scandal should affirm faith in the Catholic Church. Retractions after getting publicly busted by outsiders is hardly a “self-correcting mechanism”.
By this strange definition, the justice system is a self-correcting mechanism for criminals. Where, exactly, does the “self” enter into the picture?