That may be how you research in your field, but others take a more mundane track. I often find when I am researching something that I follow back to the original sources because way too many times, when I read a peer review article and follow the paper trail, there are gaping holes. Basically, most of the time, the person finds a journal article that supports their claim and then cites a paper cited in that as their source. Way too many times, the person writing that paper did the same damned thing. As a consequence, you will find a reference on a topic disappears about two or three layers down.
In many fields, a paper is so full of jargon that anyone who hasn't been in the field doesn't have the slightest idea what they are talking about because the jargon, abbreviations, or acronym is so parochial.
Having said that, I'm sure Karen never even read the article, if there was one. She read something that somebody with (at best) a journalism degree writing about some technical opinion from some paper. Every day, you can look at the "science" news and find a "great breakthrough" only to find that the paper actually said "Further research could indicate..."
Kano547 on April 10th, 2020 at 06:02 UTC »
Damn bruh i was just looking up Minecraft building tutorials
_MilkBone_ on April 10th, 2020 at 07:08 UTC »
Why do I feel like this was a response to some anti-vax single brain-celled organism
ralph058 on April 10th, 2020 at 07:19 UTC »
That may be how you research in your field, but others take a more mundane track. I often find when I am researching something that I follow back to the original sources because way too many times, when I read a peer review article and follow the paper trail, there are gaping holes. Basically, most of the time, the person finds a journal article that supports their claim and then cites a paper cited in that as their source. Way too many times, the person writing that paper did the same damned thing. As a consequence, you will find a reference on a topic disappears about two or three layers down.
In many fields, a paper is so full of jargon that anyone who hasn't been in the field doesn't have the slightest idea what they are talking about because the jargon, abbreviations, or acronym is so parochial.
Having said that, I'm sure Karen never even read the article, if there was one. She read something that somebody with (at best) a journalism degree writing about some technical opinion from some paper. Every day, you can look at the "science" news and find a "great breakthrough" only to find that the paper actually said "Further research could indicate..."