This question has loads of great answers, with people sharing their hard-earned insights about how to engage with modern scientific papers and make sure to get the truth out of them, so I curated it.
Forgive me if I rant a little against this curation notice.
hard-earned insights about what’s bad about science and how to get truth out of it anyway.
I’m not sure I’d frame people’s responses quite this way, i.e., I think that’s framing people as having a very negative valence towards current science in a way I’m not sure is there and I would be reluctant to assign to them. Or maybe more importantly, I don’t think that captures the prompt being replied to. If I’d authored a response here, I’d dislike this notice for somehow trying to make my response “political” in a way I don’t endorse, like it’s taking the opportunity for a “boo science” that wasn’t the point for me.
Conservatively, I read people’s responses as being built on the basis that studies vary in trustworthiness and answers are about methods for assessing trustworthiness/strength of evidence. Answers are about how scientific studies can be done poorly, but aren’t a response to the prompt of “what are ways in which science is bad?”
Sorry, I’m probably reading too much into the wording of a single sentence. Charitably, I could read the notice as saying the answers given contain ways in which scientific studies can be bad and how to filter those ones out (or trust them to that appropriate extent).
This question has loads of great answers, with people sharing their hard-earned insights about how to engage with modern scientific papers and make sure to get the truth out of them, so I curated it.
Forgive me if I rant a little against this curation notice.
I’m not sure I’d frame people’s responses quite this way, i.e., I think that’s framing people as having a very negative valence towards current science in a way I’m not sure is there and I would be reluctant to assign to them. Or maybe more importantly, I don’t think that captures the prompt being replied to. If I’d authored a response here, I’d dislike this notice for somehow trying to make my response “political” in a way I don’t endorse, like it’s taking the opportunity for a “boo science” that wasn’t the point for me.
Conservatively, I read people’s responses as being built on the basis that studies vary in trustworthiness and answers are about methods for assessing trustworthiness/strength of evidence. Answers are about how scientific studies can be done poorly, but aren’t a response to the prompt of “what are ways in which science is bad?”
Sorry, I’m probably reading too much into the wording of a single sentence. Charitably, I could read the notice as saying the answers given contain ways in which scientific studies can be bad and how to filter those ones out (or trust them to that appropriate extent).
Yeah, I think you’re right. Edited.