|
Good question.
It's sort of a corrollary to the notion that one can not simply trust a set of statistics - because stats are manipulable and can be tailored in many ways toward very divergent results. Research findings require a similar sort of skepticism, I think.
Issues such as global warming and an Ice Age hypothesis, are prime examples of the variabilities and vagaries of "scientific" research. We have before us a situation in which so-called "experts" differ greatly in their conclusions.
That should be sufficient to create a healthy skepticism in our minds regarding anything like a black-or-white interpretation of the data.
In general, one attempts to survey the field and draw some tentative conclusions on the basis of proposed hypotheses rather than supposed facts. When the results of research span a broad spectrum of possible hypotheses and interpreted results, we simply don't have sufficiently reliable information. The correct conclusion is further study is necessary.
__________________
create evolution
|