|
No opinion or debate follows: I’ve read the original research – much more comprehensive than
the press release/report; and am in correspondence with the authors. One might
want to read the paper and then specify methodological deficiencies. It happens constantly, especially in science, that research is
simplified to the point where misunderstanding or rationalization is possible.
I don’t know what a good answer would be. Not everyone can comfortably read
original papers. Perhaps trust the abstracts, or read detailed summaries is
science-for-the-public journals like Discovery? |
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.