text: do scientists agree on empirical evidence once it is published? if not how is the information rectified? this is a question in the arenas of philosophy, psycology and sociology - not biology.  but, here's my opinion.  see also popper and kuhn (or is it kuhne?) the publishing process (assuming peer review - this is not always the case!) is intended to ask the tough questions about the way the data was obtained.  the peers are experts who have learned (the hard way) many of the pitfalls and errors which can cause errors in the data.  so, before the evidence is published there is usually several reviews of it (again this ignores the problem of prepublication and on-line publishing).  some of the analysis attempts to be unbiased but some is clearly subjective.  that is, there is more tendency to accept for publication a paper if the author's name albert einstein than if it is joeseph stalin.  pedigree is important.  number of papers published, thesis advisor, number of citations, institutional affiliations, likeableness (really!), personal acquaintance, awards, prestige,and more all play a part.  also data which confirms the reviewers opinions also has more tendency to be given a cursory review. generally the peer review process is expected to determine the quality of the data and the quality of the interpretation, a most daunting task given that generally all that is known is on paper or in a file in front of the reviewer.  no video tapes of the ah hah! moment, no printouts of the calibration history, nothing about how the data was "really" acquired.  thats why there is so much emphasis placed on the trust the editor and reviewers have of the author(s).  thats why phd diplomas are often a required part of the pedigree.  error and fraud still slips through.  the recent s korean stem cell fiasco, and the failure of the atmospheric and earth science community to realize the obvious fact that data from satellites is biased if orbital decay is not fully accounted for. both of these failures were at the editorial peer review stage.  but!! after publication the real peer review begins.    scientists are highly opinionated.  any data contradicting their pet opinions will be (hopefully) subject to intense review.  character assination, name calling and fist fights also happen, unfortunately.  the process goes as follows.  paper is read.  then the data is studied.  perhaps questions to the author are sent, others are enlisted.  sometimes more data or raw data is requested.  visits to labs (if the scientists are still speaking to one another) are scheduled.  attempts may be made to duplicate the data (not publishable, so if it is done it is done with ms or undergraduate talent).  additional experimentation is done based on the scientists analysis of the paper's implications or flaws or both. at the same time letters may be written to the journal's editors if the scientist believes that there is a substantial error in the paper be it in the data or (more often) in the interpretation.  many times the letter is a criticism that the author did not take into account other data (did not cite or address it).  feelings are hurt, careers are made or broken. so, to answer your question: 1.  scientists agree on some data - some of which is wrong 2.  scientists disagree on data - lots of which is right. 3.  scientists often suspend judgement on data (and interpretation) until there is a preponderance of evidence (data) which is consistent with that data (replication and/or confirmation of the same or similar results or additional experiments which rely on (or contradict) the interpretation (falsifiability) presented by the author). 4.  motivated scientists work to confirm or contradict the paper's interpretations, depending on which "side" they are on.