Not going to deny you're mostly right in your assumption but I do take the time to get into the study other than the abstract and conclusions and to determine what I feel is correct or off, but that in no way means certain studies are not bias. Very few studies are conclusive. But when I'm talking about studies, I'm not referring to concussion prevention, I'm referring to PCS (Post Concussion Syndrome) that can be detected years after a players retirement.
Who wrote that in red?
Anyway, I don't know much about economics; I know how to pay my bills on time, save money and have more than enough money to live a happy life. That's about it in terms of economics. I mean, I know the very basic of economics, just like you know the very basics of science. Just accept it for what it is. Lets not pretend to know any more than we do.
How do you determine what is correct or not, if you do not understand research methodology and/or statistics?
For example, how do you determine if the researcher should have used an ANOVA instead of a MANCOVA? You cannot determine if the research methodology is appropriate if you do not understand these terms.
No science paper in any peer-reviewed journal would say their results are conclusive in the strict sense. Show me one instance where a scientist said in a peer-reviewed journals, "My results are conclusive. There is nothing left to study." You will not find this. Science is about PROGRESS and learning MORE.
Of course studies are biased. And studies are BIASED in EVERY field. You know how you determine if a research paper is biased? By understanding the research methodology and/or statistics. This allows you to accept results from studies that have the most sound research methodology and statistics and disregard those research papers with poor methodology and statistics.