Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about credible results- should things require less evidence if they support the status quo?
The status quo by definition has a lot of support in scientific literature. Sure, you could right a botched paper supporting it, but people would basically ignore it because it would be a bad paper (though a peer reviewer would likely tear it to shreds anyway).
Not really. Science is by its very nature subversive, and as many Nobels have been awarded for work that falsified the status quo as confirmed it.
When the Michelson-Morley experiment falsified the luminiferous ether, much of physics fell into limbo (without a credible "status quo"), until Einstein's relativity theory offered an alternative explanation for electromagnetic propagation. But Einstein's proposal was met with incredulity until very good evidence confirmed it. That's science at its best -- perpetual doubt and skepticism.