[Godel_unicode]

Ah yes, the theory that since bad papers exist all papers are bad. Reading one study is not the same as reading (and then citing) many studies. Common sense is frequently wrong, for a lot of well-studied reasons.

There's also a large difference between one lone study which finds a thing using dubious methods and a cohort of studies which independently replicate the same results.

There is no shortcut for actually reading and understanding studies if you want to learn what a study does and doesn't show, but discounting science because some history is paper are bad is... tenuous.

[jmcgough]

Part of the challenge is that must people lack the education to differentiate between a good study and a bad one, so we just throw our hands up in the air and cede to confirmation bias.