And peer review, in science, is precisely to check whether a datum is consistently reproducible within a range of error; that groups of scientists have dedicated their lives to preserving and investigating these facts does a great good for humanity, but only because we trust those scientists to engage in unimpassioned investigation. If each person had to continually prove every scientific fact for himself continuously, we would not be able to function as a society. But, please recognize that you are basically taking it on faith that the above adherences to rigor were undertaken in the production of fact. Also, please recognize, that you are still, eventually, deferring to consensus as the marker of fact--e.g., "lots of smarter people than I have tested fact x and find it reasonable to declare x a fact, therefore I should take their word, because i just don't have time and resources to read through and try to reproduce the experiences which led them to accept fact x. I ought to believe a "fact" because others have already done the skeptical work and found it reasonable to accept that "fact;" That is, of course, until the fact comes under question by another scientist who tests his claims and produces reproducible, peer reviewable studies which refute the fact, leading to the formation of a more honed, more accurate fact. This is a good system, but it does ask a large cross-section of humanity to just believe its results. It may not care whether you question those facts, but neither do ALL religions prohibit such contemplation, and, indeed, many encourage such exploration and struggle.
"My philosophy is this: If you don't have a good sense of humor, you're better off dead." --Roger Rabbit
Dr.J's Hempy Hydrorganic/OC+ Adventure, 2K13
"My god ... it's full of stars!" - David Bowman neerGreen 2: Soilless grow