Almost all legitimate scientific research can be accurately described either in a way that sounds weird, possibly useless, or in a way that sounds important and useful.
The former is usually characterized by describing the details of the experiment, which are meaningless to the untrained audience, the latter is characterized by describing its ultimate goal.
This could sound like a blind defense of “trust the experts“, which can be a problematic attitude. The point is that someone you can’t answer the latter question, then any critique should be suspect. If the researcher can’t answer the latter question concisely, then a closer look is definitely warranted.
The former is usually characterized by describing the details of the experiment, which are meaningless to the untrained audience, the latter is characterized by describing its ultimate goal.
This could sound like a blind defense of “trust the experts“, which can be a problematic attitude. The point is that someone you can’t answer the latter question, then any critique should be suspect. If the researcher can’t answer the latter question concisely, then a closer look is definitely warranted.