Oh I wasn’t thinking about climate change or evolution, nothing dramatic like that.
Those are hot-button topics. No, I’m thinking of everyday science.
It’s likely I wrote in haste. Someone else who is like me – a huge fan of Science who also holds Science to standards like any other human endeavor – thought I would appreciate this study, and I do.
I’ve been saying this “yeah, but” stuff for years whenever I see less than adequate studies making the news, but it’s the first time I saw a paper that was thorough like this from within that wasn’t merely an “opinion piece”.
If you notice the date of the paper, it’s 2005 – from 10 years ago. It’s not a hot paper of today. Not a hot topic really. Not really news.
But I think it lays out the gold standard for well-done research findings.
I’m sure that the climate change and evolution both fit the criteria for well-done research findings and are both strong examples of good Science.
I’m not agnostic about evolution. I’m hardly even agnostic about climate change, just a twinge.
Now, if I wanted to give it a thorough look over, I’d likely use this gold standard to see where it does well, where it doesn’t (if it doesn’t) – and have a more educated opinion from there than I currently do.
Like pointed out, sometimes there’s just not the time or funding among other things, and Science just has to get done with what it can with what it can.
I’m ok with that. I’m even ok with the popularity of Science and media putting out the weekly, “Scientists say this is good for you” “Scientists say this is bad for you” “Studies show that your cat doesn’t love you” and such.
But as a citizen, I like having the tools to be able to be more discerning. I already had criteria I used, ALL of which is in this paper.
_and_ he brought up a few more things to consider than I hadn’t.
I can’t help all the less educated out there but I can at least help myself to start with. It’s a start anyway.