Comment by thephyber

This assumes that everyone is currently sufficiently informed enough to make the same expert observations about methodology affecting bias. This is flatly untrue for the vast majority of the population.

And nobody has enough time or desire (or likely money to subscribe to the journals) to read the details of the papers and grok the nuances. Humans think in simple narratives for a reason.

We shouldn’t have blind faith in science, but we also shouldn’t have to go back to first principles and do our own version of every experiment. The repeatability crisis is a thing and we know about it. P value hacking is a thing we know about.

The problem described in the article is that we shouldn’t believe headlines or short summaries created by writers who aren’t incentivized to add the nuance. And nobody should believe a headline anyway - in addition to necessarily being lossy, for any for profit organization they are likely written by someone other than the writer and probably A/B tested for clicks.