Trust science, actual science, an epistemological process that you know how it works and why you should not trust some magazine report of the results of a single study.
Most study results are going to be false or misleading, this is why we have peer review and meta-data analysis.
One study could be done 100% honestly and with a good methodology (including a large and varied sample, with subgroups within the sample marked so that their results could be isolated, and uses control groups to measure the results against) could result in a body of data that is not actually representative of the actual reality.
You could have an anomalous result, and so you need to do the same study, over and over, to vindicate your findings, and conclusions, and you need to have others replicate your study in order to vett your work as authentic, not flawed, and lacking misconduct.
Over 70% of studies on any subject in any field of science will have their findings and conclusion overturned soon after they are submitted and published, peer-review and meta-analysis are the best tools that science has, while science is guess and check (make a prediction, and perform an experiment to attempt to falsify your own predictions), peer-review is both a guess and check of guess and check, and a way to keep people honest by DOUBTING THE EXPERTS (NOT ""TRUSTING THEM").
TRUST AND FAITH HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE.
Trust science, actual science, an epistemological process that you know how it works and why you should not trust some magazine report of the results of a single study.
Most study results are going to be false or misleading, this is why we have peer review and meta-data analysis.
One study could be done 100% honestly and with a good methodology (including a large and varied sample, with subgroups within the sample marked so that their results could be isolated, and uses control groups to measure the results against) could result in a body of data that is not actually representative of the actual reality.
You could have an anomalous result, and so you need to do the same study, over and over, to vindicate your findings, and conclusions, and you need to have others replicate your study in order to vett your work as authentic, not flawed, and lacking misconduct.
Over 70% of studies on any subject in any field of science will have their findings and conclusion overturned soon after they are submitted and published, peer-review and meta-analysis are the best tools that science has, while science is guess and check (make a prediction, and perform an experiment to attempt to falsify your own predictions), peer-review is both a guess and check of guess and check, and a way to keep people honest by DOUBTING THE EXPERTS (NOT ""TRUSTING THEM").
TRUST AND FAITH HAS NO PLACE IN SCIENCE.
(post is archived)