Say someone publishes a paper that has the conclusion: If you preform procedure X, you get carbon nanotubes with property Y.
Lets then go on to say that someone publishes a paper which states: carbon nanotubes with property Y will theoretically allow us to do Z.
If Z is something interesting and worthwhile, it won't be long before people read both papers and decide to try using procedure X to make Y nanotubes and then measure their ability to do Z. If no one can actually get to Z, then one or both of those papers was wrong, and the field will recognize that. The papers may not be formally retracted, but everyone will move on and stop referencing the incorrect papers.
Comments
Say someone publishes a paper that has the conclusion: If you preform procedure X, you get carbon nanotubes with property Y.
Lets then go on to say that someone publishes a paper which states: carbon nanotubes with property Y will theoretically allow us to do Z.
If Z is something interesting and worthwhile, it won't be long before people read both papers and decide to try using procedure X to make Y nanotubes and then measure their ability to do Z. If no one can actually get to Z, then one or both of those papers was wrong, and the field will recognize that. The papers may not be formally retracted, but everyone will move on and stop referencing the incorrect papers.