may
These articles really should qualify their claims more, especially in the headlines. Otherwise countless people absorb things semi-consciously as facts, rather than hypotheses that may have some data to support them.
These articles really should qualify their claims more, especially in the headlines. Otherwise countless people absorb things semi-consciously as facts, rather than hypotheses that may have some data to support them.
Personally I would trust readers to click on the article and decide for themselves. Otherwise, it's a bit infantilizing, no?
Articles summarizing studies as described should use language accordingly. Otherwise you risk certainty-addicts swarming and shouting down reasonable circumspection.
You mean a blog that loosely cites two papers of unknown quality and draws novel conclusions not from the papers?
Yes, it absolutely should not be stated as fact.
This is already contrary to all available evidence.
How many people have skimmed the the headlines and had this assertion register semi-consciously as a fact, whether or not they even looked at the article or comments.
Misinformation noise.