Thus far the discussion has focused on non-Ph.D. posing as field expert and coming up with original research. However, if you’re trying to evaluate some pop sci

Thus far the discussion has focused on non-Ph.D. posing as field expert and coming up with original research. However, if you’re trying to evaluate some pop science in media (which is likely garbage, so always start with negative points) and have a friend or family member with a B.S. to talk to, they’re often qualified to debunk a large class of bullshit. For instance, if there’s a news report of a perpetual motion machine, and a physics major tells you it’s obviously bullshit because it violates the first and/or second law of thermodynamics, they’re likely correct. In less obvious scenarios, hopefully they would try to track down the source and try to make sense of it, and tell you if the source is garbage (in case they’re qualified to evaluate it), and/or if the source is misrepresented in media. This isn’t always possible and assumes a humble person who don’t brag about things they don’t understand, though; if the person is known to be boastful then you probably won’t place too much trust on them anyway. The above is probably more useful for hard sciences though. Honestly when it comes to psychology I take theories endorsed by actual field experts with a grain of salt.