Speaking of trusting science, I have a bone to pick with the "soft" sciences like psychology, and sociology. These sciences are much more open to interpretatio

Speaking of trusting science, I have a bone to pick with the "soft" sciences like psychology, and sociology. These sciences are much more open to interpretation than, say, physics. Yet people will link research papers in these fields and push them as 100% fact without thinking critically about these papers. Let's say that your paper claims "X reduces negative behaviors in children such as aggression". In my experience on Reddit and Hacker News, people will link papers like this and claim you are anti-science for questioning anything. Yet there are some important questions that should be answered like: "How do you even measure aggression?" "Did X also reduce assertiveness (which is linked to aggression)?" "Is aggression always a negative behavior? Who decided this was an appropriate classification?" "Holistically, is this a better outcome overall or were there drawbacks to doing X?" It's to the point where I have serious doubts about the validity of papers in soft science fields. Unless of course your paper measures something directly like serotonin levels.