What is written in any teaching text book is usually considered static information or basic information, I could not imagine not understanding the basic premise of knowledge on any subject matter so a person can get an idea of what might be going on?
I like pubmed and google scholar better because you can get more recent clues or hints on what may be be actually happening when they say X equals Y and when I say recent findings that could mean research going back to the 1800’s. It may correlate to empirical cross validation and cross double blind placebo (get the original idea maker or architect away from the experiment; physically) in research going on now?
The problem with it is, there will always be research that opposes the other equally in a different way so then that creates a paradox and placebo, the scientist performing the experiment may want a certain outcome and that will in-fact manifest itself and come out as a false positive, then some one else comes along and tries to replicate it, it comes out the complete opposite or the scientist trying replicate there original experiment will get an entirely different outcome; this happens more often than not which is highly suspicious also when it comes to who is funding the research? They are hopeful for a certain result and it skews the entire frame work based on the variables chosen?
One example is like purposely placing some type of sugar in that rancid polyunsaturated fat or saturated fat in that mouse chow and saying OMG fat clogged all those poor mouses arteries when it was the amount of sugar being mixed with the fat?
