I think, in a way, you could call common law peer-reviewed law. It involves jurists continually checking and referencing previous rulings and decisions. Sometimes they agree with them and stick to those examples of precedent and other times they just throw that precedent out the window and say "No, you're wrong, here's why." but there is a kind of mutual verification of each other's work. It's not a direct comparison of course but it's at least vaguely similar insofar as something as unscientific as jurisprudence can be.
In my opinion the scientific method is not the problem. It's the people ( not accusing anyone here in this thread, just people in general ) who place it above and beyond anything else and who do so without either an understanding of the process or a concern for the ethics of that process. To them, if it is something from "science" then it must be dogmatically adhered to simply because it is "science" and not because of any merits that particular "science" may or may not have. In a sense they view the consensus as the determining factor and not what the consensus is about. For example, these people will wholeheartedly champion the idea that the Moon is made of cheese if the consensus says that to be so even if that consensus may be flawed, either because of incomplete data or intentional malfeasance. They don't care what the consensus says, only that there is one.
