>If one hasn't studied at the university and read the real scientific papers and learned to compared the good ones to the bad ones in one's own field (and everywhere there are enough bad ones too) my impression one has no chance to be good at recognizing the difference.

True. Reading more papers seems to be more and more important.

>So it's really hard. The best bet is really learning to discover what the limits of he fields are, who are real experts in the field, then read what they write etc. It's never simple. But if you're just watching a TV where something is presented as a "debate" learn to recognize what's "behind" the two only people who are shown as two "sides": behind a real scientists could be the whole scientific community, effectively all the experts in their field, and behind the guy who "sounds" better in the show can be simply... money from some specific interest group which finances an "actor" who looks good.

I see. So basically try to look beyond the curtains even if it's a different field.

And thanks for the recommendations! Both War of Science and Merchants of Doubt look interesting!

>In short, there are definitely enough people who earn money by "selling" falsehoods. It was never an accident.

So people selling falsehoods is not limited to present era eh. I see!