I see the newsbites that come around. I scan quickly through to find names, places and references.
Then I do a quick Google. I don’t stop ’til I get to the scientific paper itself and scan it quickly.
Then I shoot to the references THERE, until I get to the study that is the basis for the portion of the original newsbite that i’m curious about.
It only takes about 5-10 minutes. Google Scholar is awesome for that.
I tell myself, “I’m cutting through the bullshit here. There’s always bullshit (especially in Scientific papers – UGH the STYLE they use) – but once you get to their premises, testing methodology, etc, then you can at least get some idea as to the validity of the initial news article.
Kenneth Udut It’s also why I think Theoretical Physics should move off into a branch of Philosophy, rather than being “cut free” of the need of empirical evidence. Without empirical evidence, it ain’t science. it’s philosophy. That’s not putting down philosophy in any way. They’re just different fields for a reason