All my previous study pals who got an MA in literature ended up jobless or somewhere completely outside of their field of study.
Science is a human endeavor, and prone to all the failings that humans possess. Stuff does fall through the cracks because it isn't perfect. It just happens to be the best system we've got that, in general and over the course of years, stumbles along towards progress.
Noted and agreed.
If you have a better alternative, please don't keep it a secret.
Passive-aggressive much?
I'll also note that all the counterexamples you list were, eventually, found out through the scientific process and repudiated by their original publishers
Eventually, yes. How many are still out there unrepudiated....? It took The Lancet years to finally retract Wakefield's criminally fraudulent paper. I know some of my colleagues that have tried to get papers down for several reasons, but most attempts just bogged down in an epistolary war of attrition with editors lasting sometimes years.
Peer review is supposed to weed out the cranks and trolls.
Unfortunately, it sometimes doesn't work. Ask Alan Sokal (troll), Andrew Wakefield (liar and murderer by proxy), Diederik Stapel (liar), Jan Hendrik Schön (liar) or the other trolls, pranksters and liars that got through peer review without so much as a raised eyebrow from the reviewers or the editors.
So the actual problem is not the (lack of) repairability, it's how much time/money/effort you're willing to put into it. Then don't complain about repairability, complain about the additional time/effort/money to repair a Mac.
It's like saying natural gas cars are badly designed because there's CNG fuel station near you.
What is research but a blind date with knowledge? -- Will Harvey