| A problem is that different fields that sound similar have very different standards. Epidemiologists appear to frequently take un-reviewed, un-published papers straight to the press and politicians specifically to change government policy. Actual doctors, not so much. What's the difference between an expert in infectious diseases and an expert in treatment of infectious diseases, to the layman? Hardly any. The media plays a part. Journalists routinely conflate doctors, academics and political activists under the rubric of "experts". Sometimes this is deliberate and overt. Guido Fawkes has had a long running campaign where they expose TV news presenting left-wing activists as neutral experts, without telling anyone about the interviewees backgrounds. As can be seen in this particular incident, that campaign has started to have a small effect, but some journalists don't like being exposed that way! https://order-order.com/2020/05/22/sky-news-gets-there-event... For people to get better at interpreting studies the first step must be to de-conflate different kinds of "expert". In particular academics need to be referred to as such and separated from the type of practical expert who practices their craft in the real world every day. |