I said truthy, not truthful. They're often fairly accurate reports about what they did/recorded (I said "often," mind, not always -- p-hacking is a common lie

I said truthy, not truthful. They're often fairly accurate reports about what they did/recorded (I said "often," mind, not always -- p-hacking is a common lie of omission). That doesn't mean they're accurate predictions about future results, as studies are extremely limited in their scope, size, control, etc., which is one of two factors behind the replication crisis. The other factor being that replication studies are rare. When I read headlines/articles like this, I think "oh neat, I wonder if somebody will identify the mechanism behind some mystery protein acting on whatever system in mice, and if that interaction has an analogue in humans." People on HN frequently seem to be enraged rather than curious about studies with overblown headlines, and it's a little sad.