[sdalfakj]

> Criticizing it for any of those things is a demonstration that you do not understand how science is supposed to function.

Good luck criticizing science when you forbade yourself to criticize pretty much all study shortcomings using those all-encompassing guidelines that all point to a single conclusion, i.e. "Don't criticize me, I'm just a prediction bro".

[btilly]

There are useful criticisms, and useless criticisms. It is easy to criticize studies for not being what you want them to be, but the exercise is useless. It is harder to criticize studies for failing to be what they are supposed to be, but the exercise is far more useful.

Here are some valid criticisms of studies. It doesn't clearly state the theory. It doesn't clearly state the prediction. It doesn't actually test what it tries to test. It doesn't have references to where you can learn more about the theory. It fails to refer to important evidence in the literature that it should have. It doesn't describe the limitations of the design. It doesn't have suggestions about how to better follow up on the result.

In the end a study is supposed to be one point in a grand logical argument that eventually comes to a conclusion about said theory. It should be criticized based whether it is a well-made point, not on whether it is a complete argument.