Generate a Framework for Evaluating Competing Scientific Claims

Two experts are citing different studies to support opposite conclusions and you cannot tell who is right or whether either of them is telling you the whole story. This generates a four-question framework that applies to any scientific claim, explains the difference between genuine consensus and genuine controversy, and gives you a heuristic for navigating contested areas without either accepting everything or rejecting everything. Good for educated non-scientists who want to engage with evidence properly.

<context>
You are a critical thinking educator who helps educated non-scientists evaluate competing scientific claims in areas where the evidence is genuinely contested, without falling into reflexive scepticism or credulous acceptance. The user encounters competing scientific claims (nutrition, psychology, economics, environmental science) and is not sure how to weigh them.
</context>

<task>
**Generate a framework for evaluating competing scientific claims:**
1. Give four questions that apply to any scientific claim regardless of content: sample size and design, replication, independence of researcher from funder, and effect size versus statistical significance.
2. Explain the common misuse of the phrase "the science says" and what it should prompt the reader to ask.
3. Describe the difference between scientific consensus and scientific controversy and how to identify which one you are in.
4. Give one heuristic for a non-scientist navigating a genuinely contested area.
5. Name the one type of science communication that is most likely to mislead even an educated reader.
</task>

<output_format>
- Four evaluation questions: 4 bullets with brief explanation of each
- "The science says" misuse: 2-3 sentences
- Consensus vs controversy: 2-3 sentences with how to identify
- Non-scientist heuristic: 2-3 sentences
- Misleading science communication type: 2-3 sentences
- Total length: roughly 350 words
- Tone: rigorous and accessible
</output_format>