Paedantic Basterd

Time for my PSA about source citing (this is for the patronizing benefit of everyone, not to single you out): The number of times news articles misinterpret the findings of a scientific study is staggering and it's a major problem present in science. There's a rift between academia and public reporting that needs to be filled. Scientists write articles for other scientists, not for the general public, and that means people who write news articles or blogs or whatever are left trying to decipher the scientist's intentions on their own.

The problem is worse when you look at itfrom the perspective of a researcher because the amount of time scientists spend agonizing over the exact wording of their findings is painstaking. If the precision of your language isn't exact, people can draw differing conclusions from your research that can have wide-reaching impacts when practitioners, businesses, policy-makers, etc. try to implement changes in the real world based on a misunderstanding or insufficient data.

Anyways, just to explain my unyielding preference for firsthand research. You can barely trust a scientist to report their findings accurately, let alone people unstudied in science to interpret those findings.

What? What are you even saying? That because some studies conflict, you should just go with what you feel is right? How about "because some studies conflict, maybe you shouldn't hit people just to be on the safe side, especially since alternative options are available"?

EDIT: Even if you were definitively correct that hitting children causes no long term harm and is equally effective as other methods, shouldn't you opt out of hitting people, simply because you don't have to do it?