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.
