For general introduction to any subject, I use 2 resources. Wikipedia and Dummies. Both are relatively well sourced and checked, and good general overviews on a subject.

Reading either gives you an overview on how the subject operates, and what it's specialities are.

Neither are perfect.

Once you have done reading them, looked at the sources, understood how they fit in with other subjects you may know and the timelines of knowledge, then its time to deep dive or move on.

​

However, at least by now you have an understanding, not only of the questions to ask, but also the terminology specific to the subject. Those questions, and that terminology can lead you to other sources, that either Wiki or Dummies both can lead you to.

You comment wanting to know if K12 can increase the uptake of carbs.

By this point you are so deep into a subject that the only source, is either specialists you can contact, or Google Scholar articles.

​

I was in debate with someone recently who I disagreed with. The linked me to an NIH published scientific article that proved their point. I had no choice but to accept that the conclusions of the article where based upon the methodology of the research.
However, I pointed out several fundamental flaws with the research and methodology and so I could not accept that paper as the be all and end all, and that is where your bias experience comes in.

​

Vaccines are 'settled' science, in we understand the aim of what they do, what we see on how the human body interacts with them, and the resulting benefits, but there is no guarantee that the use of them will be exactly the same in 10 or 100 years. Our ability to peer into biology improves everyday and there may come a time when we understand that the conceptual idea we hold today, does not ring true in the future.

Climate change is a political term for what is considered Anthropogenic climate modification. It's 'settled' science, we have measured co2 and other gas emissions in the past, seen how the climate reacted then, and make predictions based on our current emissions and see if those predictions match current conditions.

Is this settled status going to change, absolutely, it has between COP 1 and the latest (primarily due to political pressure). Is it going away, no, is it going to modify in the future, yes.

All you can do, unless you are looking to be a specialist, is understand how we come to the conclusions that make 'settled' science settled.

​

As a bit of a geek, I love popsci books, but reading the one star reviews on good reads and Amazon can be very enlightening, that most publications miss or get wrong what some people consider fundamental problems in what is supposed to be covered.

Searching the references indicated in these negative reviews can also help you understand if the person leaving the bad review knows what they are talking about, or unfortunately has some political reason for doing so.

​

I recently purchased the 'New York Public Library - Science Desk Reference' (978-0028604039) as a broad overview of scientific theory and facts and the interrelated nature of information. I would consider this to be a well researched and upstanding publication, printed in 1995.

But the science has moved on, and even to an untrained eye there are fundamental glaring issues not with the copy, but based upon our 30 year updated understanding of our reality, and this was at the time probably close to the best of the best book.

​

No book can ever be perfect, no one can know all. Science changes, knowledge changes, philologia is all there can be.