Anyway, little leeway is allowed in journal editorial circles for anything other than fairly strict logic. Other peoples work must be extensively referenced. Supporting facts must be referenced. Conclusions drawn must stick to the known facts etc etc Of course, this will not completely stop biases ie people may selectively cite references that support their views. It will not completely stop denial ( ie disbelief can prevent publication or data may be ignored with alternative explannations sought). However, it is the best filtering system that academic humans have been able to come up with.
Peer reviewed journals are important. But, trying to turn a blog into a peer reviewed journal will greatly reduce readability and clarity . References can be mis-used as well. Someone (Dan John, I think) once said that you should not believe everything you read on the internet. A single reference or a stack of references doesn't necessarily make a particular statement correct. However, broader criteria can help. Might post about that at some stage.
Read critically, make your own checks. Using Google you can do that far more easily than in any time in history. Like you I'm a