The scientific method's strength is its ability to lead to conclusions objectively. However, the immediate consequence of this is that by avoiding subjectivity it unwittingly assigns equal significance to every result. This is not to say that all results have the same value; rather, by not advocating any particular result one is not able to distinguish between results other than how prevalent they occur in the literature. If one were to take a random sample of results, one would only know that certain results receive more attention than others but not identify which results were better than others. I find this incredibly frustrating because it facilitates so much wasted time barking up the wrong tree. For instance, by listening to an academic talk one cannot know whether the method advocated is any better without having to spend countless hours amassing the minutiae. To me, academic content is purely for reference purpose after the task of identifying promising leads is completed.
In any case, creation of scientific output is an end in itself and may not be relied upon as a means to truth.