To me the scientific method should include a bonus step of “repitition” meaning that the results are replicable. But I don’t think that’s what peer review actually is in the real world. Sometimes people will be arguing some scientific point to me and say “*you* can prove x for yourself!” When the only way I could prove whatever it is would be to have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expensive and sensitive equipment. That’s not repeatable or observable in my mind. I’m not saying I have to be able to see or test everything in order to believe it, but I can’t think of many things worth believing in that I can’t actually observe in some way.