I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s a human thing; I think it&#x27;s a problem whenever you rely on previous knowledge or sharing knowledge, which science is exactly about. There is no practical experimental set-up that systematically reestablishes all prior knowledge from scratch, so there has to be trust in other scientists and reevaluating that trust must be grinded out the same way we grind out new scientific results: methodically, reproducibly.<p>What is problematic when it comes to humans is how our social structures are organized for doing science. They are hierarchical, resources are controlled centrally, and scientists are forced to compete with each other instead of cooperating with each other. Science is a career. We injure science and scientists by tying up their economic prosperity with their ability to convince the rest of the world that their work is worth anything. This creates a huge incentive to push forward and a huge disincentive to reevaluate past results: Your reputation can be damaged because you might be undermining the legacy of a high status scientist, and if you confirm the past result then you haven&#x27;t done anything new and that reflects poorly on your &#x27;performance&#x27;.<p>Science succeeds in spite of status, institutional monopolies, and hierarchical social organization. It would flourish in a more egalitarian society.<p>Is it intrinsic to humans to be hierarchical and status based? I want to say no. I don&#x27;t think so. It is in the interests of the prevailing powers of the world to convince people that it is the case though, because they&#x27;d rather we not imagine a world where there isn&#x27;t power to accumulate and hold on to.