> Even if peer review does not solve the problem of bad research completely, it certainly mitigates it better than not doing anything.

This isn't self-evident. In fact, it's conceivable that peer review could actually lower the quality of published research by delaying paradigm shifting work from seeing the light of day.

By attributing less weight to the imprimatur of peer review.

It's a sign that something might well hold up, but it's not definitive. I think people know this about their own field, and then immediately forget it when dealing with another field.

How? If someone is going to rely upon the conclusions of a paper, simply read that paper and evaluate the claims. i.e. stop the sole use of the titles of papers and their cliffs notes to support a point.

I think the problem people are getting is that "peer reviewed" has become a badge of expertise or authority in itself, inflating people's trust in it and weakening skepticism.