If you say a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a "new discovery" that sentence can be interpreted as you saying the new study is dressing up the discovery as something novel. I don't see why you needed to take a jab at my reading comprehension / character here, you could have just said, "I meant ... by this sentence not ..." and we'd be in agreement.

I read your comment as; first critiquing new studies trying to propose old discoveries as novel, and then going on to say you get annoyed at how the media or other people handle these studies and insert a lot of hyperbole.

I don't think this is an unfair interpretation, although if my reading comprehension has gone wrong somewhere, then explain where and how, because I evidently can't see where I've gone wrong (or I wouldn't have interpreted like so).

It's a near perfect example of confirmation bias and that's actually one of the central kinds of reasoning science challenges and tries to overcome with the hypothetico-deductive mode or more simply, deductive reasoning. I also agree, you can have two studies side by side, with roughly the same degree of validity, but the reaction in the comments can be of different polarities really entirely dependent upon preconceptions.

> so a new study reiterating what we already know dressed up as a “new discovery” is eye-roll worthy.

You also said this.

Critical analysis, and criticality are not always the same thing. So I can probe at the logical validity of a claim as a way to critically challenge the material, or I offload a bunch of adversarial gish gallop.

Both are being critical, one is doing it in an analytical or constructive mode. The other is doing it in a rhetorical or biased mode. Just being "critical" is not sufficient, science is critical in of itself but via the hypothetico-deductive model, it's not just critical, it has a logical system by which it facilitates criticality, that is, the criticality is systematic.

Criticality can be as irrational and illogical as it can the opposite. That shines here, the amount of criticality that stems from A) not actually reading the study or cherry picking small sections, B) not reading the authors conclusion or analysis and C) just reacting to the title, it's not that some individuals are spurious, it's that criticality without the scientific or philosophical foundations of reasoning is spurious.

Which I think has potential for feedback loops. Commenters without the academic understanding of the topic and systems might make judgements, that means you get an overly skeptical (or positive too) presentation in the comments, people reading the comments might derive their conclusion from the theme of the comments, rather than the paper itself, and thus you have a process by which a skepticism develops that sits upon rickety, rotten foundations. But the real crux is that a lot of critical comments can completely stem from a preconception (I disagree with the study -> so I'm going to find things to be critical of), that means that criticism is literally antithetical to science.

If it's already been studied it's not going to present anything as a new discovery, unless it found something in the same study / interaction that previous studies didn't, that's often why we perform that same study again, to deduce the consistency of the results, manipulate other variables or control more confounds, use tools or observatory measures we previously didn't have and to create a large sample. Wouldn't get past peer review doing the same thing that's been done 30 years ago and then claiming they made the novel discovery. It's never eye-roll worthy to see multiple studies performed on the same topic with roughly the same methodology, it's called replication and incredibly important for validity and consistency of the outcomes.

Sure, a journalist might pick up a new study and make some outlandish claim that it's discovered this new thing we've know for decades... but that's not the study doing it.