Nothing in life is perfect. Usually, the imperfection is that people don’t check what science is saying. However, there is also sometimes the lesser known issue occurring of people checking what the science is saying, so let me give an example.
Or, you know, there’s a naturally occurring source of lighter than air gas venting up through the sand in that spot. (Which is plausibly God’s doing, but so is everything else if he made everything, so that’s not more evidence than chronicling any other part of our existence.)
Ultimately, the only part of a paper that’s worth a damn is the middle part that gives the actual details of what was done and what the results were. The other parts are, in some sense, just an opinion piece on those results and their meaning. (Not to say that a knowledgeable person’s opinion is without value - they may be laying down the solid truth and they may be able to provide context that helps to understand the experiment and its results better. But there is no law of the universe that this is so. Some research scientist in the world passed with all D’s and anyone on the internet can write and submit some paper that’s in the correct format to somewhere and have it look official.)
But now that we’re only giving any true weight to the middle part, we still have to accept that it only tells us what it tells us. Paper bags float off when placed opening down at God’s Spot. It demonstrates nothing more and nothing less than that.
https://www.reddit.com/r/xkcd/comments/1apvjzl/any_other_xkcds_that_make_showing_or_applying/
How much value to take from the research sort of depends on your ability to grade the quality of that research. You may well not be qualified to do that, and nor might be the average science journalist who is reporting on it, nor the average social media influencer, and they’re liable to take the author’s more user friendly summation as gospel, without even reading the methodology.
So you might say that the best strategy is to find an expert in the field to listen to since they have the chops (presumably) to evaluate this stuff? No, we know that doesn’t work since there are any number of scam influencers with the qualifications to know better and how are you to know which to back, or even if you should pay attention to either one?
I’ve generally suggested to people that they should follow the guidance of large organizations of experts, like the American Heart Association or the American Physical Society since anything they promote has to have been signed off on by a committee. The evidence has to have satisfied a majority of the experts.
But, even there, we know from history that sometimes the off-the-wall, long shot theory that “all the experts” poo-poo’ed on, ended up becoming the accepted answer.
Some branches of science - for example, psychology and macroeconomics - may be relatively far behind some other areas of academics (but catching up).
Still, probably the best answer is to trust associations of experts. Past that, actually read the research, mostly read the middle part, try to learn statistics and how to lie with statistics, try to be conversant in the basics of all things, but most importantly accept:
All things that things you’ve ever heard or said are just some idea some human had. That idea might eventually prove to be wrong.