You are reading a single comment by @zooeyzooey and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
-
That's a fair critique, but one that can realistically be applied to pretty much anything outside of academic journals. For what it's worth places like MPMD regularly cite scientific studies. Obviously there's the old "you can prove anything with facts" thing with that, but it's worth noting.
And the point of the original mention is that no matter whether it's 100% legit, or seemingly good information not being distinguishable from actual good information, it's still leaps and bounds ahead of 20 years ago in terms of availability of information which can contribute to people's openness to hopping on cycle. Whether legitimately or not they can feel like they have researched it well in a way that was not really easy to do historically.
zooeyzooey
I'm wondering how people know that it is good balanced information and not something that looks like good balanced information.