>this is obviously partly guess work

Ah..That makes sense. Because nothing you were saying making any sense to me.

>The problem is that you can't just verify everything yourself..

But one should be free to reject (in the sense that they should be free not to depend on it, or take decisions based on it) things that they did not themselves verify. But today if you do that, you become "anti-science"...and in-fact the people who wants others to "believe" science is anti-science..

The joke times we live in..

They are never right, even when they are right; they are only right 50 years down the road....at which point no one cares..

>And I'll also caution, again, that reasoning based on anecdotes can be distorted both ways...

I will go further and say that if you can clearly see how the incentives are aligned, even anecdotes are not necessary.

>If you see fraud, then REPORT IT to someone who can actually hold them accountable. Unsubstantiated and undirected accusations just spread distrust and do not increase accountability.

Mmmm..are you..for real? I mentioned incentives just above, so let us look at it. What is the incentive of this "person who can hold them accountable"? Do they really want to cut down the "output" of the institution by insisting on 100% honest? Do they really want to lose to competition which might allow such practices?

I think not. I think if this is reported, chances that the report will sit in some shelves or end up in some dust bin doing nothing. And the person who report it would suffer one way or the other.

Also: https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2003-ashforth.pdf

>What Science and institutions need is mechanisms...

Na, "Science" and "Scientists" needs funding. End of story.

>We do what we do, not because of motivation

So you are saying a living thing will try to feed even if it does not feel hunger?