Comment by nickpsecurity

"There might be a useful form of hybrid here, like paying professional skeptics to review papers."

This is how the scientific method is described. It's what much of the public thinks their money is paying for. So, I'm definitely for doing it for real or not calling it science.

Even the amount of review I saw you do on papers on your blog seems to exceed what much peer review is doing. So, how can we treat things as science if that aren't even meeting that standard, much less replication?