This is why one has to read papers in context. You can't just read a paper: you have to then go off and read some reviews that cover the surrounding science. Then read some other papers on the topic of interest. Pay attention to dates on papers, as opinions change with time. Note the disagreements.

Reading the scientific literature is reading the moment to moment output of a noisy search algorithm. Any given publication is near meaningless on its own.

This business of reading the context for a specific item of research isn't that hard. If as a layperson you feel up to having an opinion on a specific paper, then you are certainly equipped to do more reading in the field.

Start with review papers, which tend to be a gentler uphill slope, and then fit other papers into what you see there. Take note of the disagreements between reviews, the different emphasis placed on different aspects of the topic. In most scientific fields review papers are usually pretty good at explicitly covering the unknowns and debates of interest. The subtexts and unwritten stuff, such as funding-driven conflicts of research strategy, take longer to figure out. But one has to start somewhere.

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2009/05/how-to-read-the-...

"The scientific community doesn't produce an output of nice, neat tablets of truth, pronouncements come down from the mountain. It produces theories that are then backed by varying weights of evidence: a theory with a lot of support stands until deposed by new results. But it's not that neat in practice either. The array of theories presently in the making is a vastly complex and shifting edifice of debate, contradictory research results, and opinion. You might compare the output of the scientific community in this sense with the output of a financial market: a staggeringly varied torrent of data that is confusing and overwhelming to the layperson, but which - when considered in aggregate - more clearly shows the way to someone who has learned to read the ticker tape."