Kenneth has an incredibly thorough method for checking the
   validity of scientific claims and that's what I believe everyone
   should be doing before citing these "facts". I can't absolve
   myself of perpetrating what I have just reprimanded though. I
   intend to develop my own fact checking system as well.   ----
   I'm honored you mentioned me and YES definitely come up with a
   system that works for you! I actually can't recall my system - I
   mean, it's just something I "do" that seems to work.. .and I can
   usually remember what I usually do when someone really wants to
   know but can't atm smile emoticon but yes yes yes YES yes yes!
   Figure out how to arm your "bullshit meter" - whatever works for
   you... and revise as necessary. I don't know the perfect
   system... I keep looking for new ways to figure out "this is
   true enough likely" and "this is utter bullshit" and "this COULD
   be true but I dunno seems fishy because a) b) c) d) e) f) and
   sometimes q)....." etc. Scientism is on the rise and while it's
   not the worst possible new religion to appear on the world
   scene, it's annoying because: SCIENCE-SO-ITS-TRUE. People who
   'get' Science know it doesn't work like that. Every "fact" CAN
   be overturned - that's the power of it. People want absolutes
   and really, that's fine for them. Certainty is addictive like a
   drug and people get hooked. But it annoys ME when people have
   unquestionable Science belief because they're not APPLYING the
   best parts of what science can do in their OWN reasoning:
   Critique, question, probe, don't get too married to your idea so
   you're not blinding by your own awesomeness, etc.