For me, it is at that stage where I would have to prove whatever is being said for myself, rather than accept any claims. Even reading the paper would not be e

For me, it is at that stage where I would have to prove whatever is being said for myself, rather than accept any claims. Even reading the paper would not be enough - I mean that I would need to verify the claim personally. Obviously I don't have time for that, so my position is that I take all claims extremely skeptically. The problem is that there that the rational position is that there should be no trust in science. 70% of papers cannot be replicated (see the replication crisis). There is also the issue of funding - you get what you pay for. There are really only 3 funding sources of science - government, military and corporations. (To me, these are actually just one source 3 facets of the same beast, but not everyone agrees with me that we live in a fascist state.) But those funding interests don't make for 'free' science. No one will research good diet - confusion reigns on the best diet for people. They will research expensive drugs and treatments. No one researches how climate change isn't happening, only that it is. Etc. The upshot is, that with enough funding you can fairly quickly have reams of papers and documents in support of whatever case you want to promote. The broader scientific 'truth' is left at the wayside.