> Synthesizing what you read in in introduction sections can be a good way to get a sense for the current consensus, and they are usually pretty accessible if t

> Synthesizing what you read in in introduction sections can be a good way to get a sense for the current consensus, and they are usually pretty accessible if the paper is any good. This is basically how I've formed my own opinions, so I hope that its close to whatever consensus is (if there even is one yet, I assume real stable consensus takes time). But I temper my certainty a bit and limit myself to saying things like "there is evidence that [xyz]", because I know that's a true statement that I can back up. I can't speak much to the quality of the evidence, but I can be aware that it exists and I can also try to find supporting/countering evidence, or a lack thereof. I don't know that I can get all the way to judging what the consensus is though. Once I get to secondary sources, I feel like I'm on much shakier ground. There are just too many forces at play: social/political pressures, monetary incentives (bloggers have to give their base what they want if they want to thrive), the difficulty of understanding something novel, and a rapidly changing world on top of it all. So when I see people pulling out the "most experts" card (consensus in other words), I can't help but discount it heavily. They could be friends with the actual only researchers publishing on a topic, or they could have gotten it from their uncle on Facebook, or anywhere in between.