To me a peer reviewed paper is not strong evidence, for I have no way of knowing...

Whether the paper conveys truth or not.

And even if I read the paper I still wouldn't know.

For being peer reviewed is no guarantee of truth.

It just means two different sets of people thought it made sense and the research process seemed reasonably done.

They don't know if it's right, either.

Not even the authors.

REAL EVIDENCE

For me evidence is something I can see with my own two eyes.

That can be faked, yes...

But rarely and at great expense.

On the other hand peer reviewed papers are estimated to be wrong at least half of he time, and would suspect much more.