I think this is a problem if you take one paper and then you weight its conclusion at 100%. It's less so if you take all of the conclusions and realize they all

I think this is a problem if you take one paper and then you weight its conclusion at 100%. It's less so if you take all of the conclusions and realize they all have a weight (maybe 0). But I think that's true for every source of information. My approach is to avoid framing things in terms of "now I know x is true", and instead look at it in terms of "someone believes (or wants me to believe) x is true". I then weigh all of those beliefs as I observe the world around me. I resign myself to never really knowing anything myself, but having some idea of what different schools of thought are on a given topic. If you move your information gathering further along the chain, to maybe a text book, or some expert's twitter feed, why should these things be more reliable? If they've correctly come upon the consensus view, you still have to consider that informing you of the truth night not be their first priority. They could be after money, advancement in their field, political agendas, and (though less likely) they still could be just plain wrong. So they're more likely to know the truth, but you're still unable to evaluate whether they're giving it to you or not.