> then it should be easy to author your own paper that proves whatever is "obviously true". Or maybe reality isn't so easy?
Yes, this is my point. It's very easy to publish papers which say anything, if you don't mind that the results are junk or fraudulent. This is why most science is un-replicable, and you should have low confidence in a randomly selected paper, especially if the results conflict with bayesian expectations.
It's actually very hard to perform and publish good science.
My own (anecdotal) experience tells me that increased social media use is directly proportional to increased bad feelings. Common sense tells me that increased bad feelings over time leads to bigger, worse bad feelings.
My experience agrees with you. At the very least, I had no idea how many of the people I grew up with were as stupid, shallow and bigoted as they are until I heard them announce their opinions on social media. I may not have hung out with many of them after high school, but at least I still sort of had some respect for them.
I trust science completely, it's all we have. I don't trust the people doing the science.
In the same way that you can trust laws, but not most lawyers. Medicine, but not certain doctors. It's not the scientific method that's at fault, it's its abuse.
"The thing I have noticed is when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right. There's something wrong with the way you are measuring it," - Jeff Bezos
If it's "obviously true", then it should be easy to author your own paper that proves whatever is "obviously true". Or maybe reality isn't so easy?