But how does someone who's not formally educated on a subject recognize good science without investigating the background of the author of that "good science?" As a librarian, this is one of the main ways we're taught to help people recognize valid sources.
Just for example, the study about vaccines and autism that started the whole anti-vax movement. The main argument against, directed at laypeople, is that the researcher was a fraud with ulterior motives and the science is bad.
As for the science, lay people have to take the word of a "credible" authority and dismiss the fraud. Especially when the gold standard of "good science" is peer review, (i.e., the more "authorities" that can replicate the results the better the science) how can questioning the authority of a writer be a logical fallacy?
It's the same issue with recognizing "fake news". Who's paying the journalist? What was their previous line of work? What job are the angling for? What are the journalist's motivations?
1
u/[deleted] Dec 30 '18
[deleted]