Let me conclude with advice for journalists and researchers.

What are you supposed to do?

First of all, know the validity of your sources. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's true. One important part of that is something that was published in 1983, to pick a random example, doesn't mean it currently holds. There may be a whole twenty-four years of research in between that found other things that invalidate that research. You need to know your sources and know if there's other evidence that's relevant and then ask the questions that I just identified before.

What should the researchers do?

Explicitly and prominently answer those questions in your reporting of your own research.

The research articles that I respect most when I read them are the ones that say, "Here are the limitations of my measures. I did the best job I could with what I was trying to study, but here's what you cannot infer from what I did, and I hope I'll do a better job next time." Be honest about those things; it doesn't weaken your research, it strengthens it.