So how does one decide whether a paper’s claim is over the top? For much of the middle of the 20th century, one might apply such a label to plate tectonics. Later, one could see someone plausibly applying such a label to papers with evidence that ulcers were caused by bacteria rather than stress. Completely ignoring papers in this fashion seems like an unreliable heuristic.
I see lesswrong has gone full reddit, with people getting downvoted just because etc.
Anyway, this excuse works only for papers with over the top claims that follow accepted methodology very well. There are extremely few such papers.
So how does one decide whether a paper’s claim is over the top? For much of the middle of the 20th century, one might apply such a label to plate tectonics. Later, one could see someone plausibly applying such a label to papers with evidence that ulcers were caused by bacteria rather than stress. Completely ignoring papers in this fashion seems like an unreliable heuristic.