Are you raising this question because of the recent brouhaha between two respected jellies who went at each other in another thread regarding credibility of ‘a scientific study’?
Because I go along with (parts of) both sides of that argument:
1. On the one hand, it doesn’t matter who or what the source is—if the study states something ‘interesting’ then it’s probably worth further study unless the claims are backed by nothing more than dreams, suppositions and bombast. So if a blogger with a history of psychotic breaks with reality made the claim that Martians were living in his back yard ‘and I can prove it’ he says then it’s worth a look. On the other hand, if he says that Vulcan told him that Martians were living in his back yard, then that’s totally dismissable.
2. But on the other hand (and sometimes it’s good that we only have two hands), just because a famous scientist with a string of credentials as long as your arm says that there are Martians living in his back yard, including photos and descriptions of their architecture, a signed copy of their constitution and a proclamation of a desire for galactic peace from their president… then that is also “worthy of further study”.
I’m not accepting or rejecting verifiable claims without verification or the legwork to deny the same, no matter the source of the claim.
So in the other thread:
1. It’s ‘interesting’ to see claims made about an experimental result, and a potential cause of obesity.
2. The claim has to be verified by duplication of the experiment and results by someone else that I respect before I start to march down the road in support of the idea.