The page Facts For Genius has a whopping one million followers and posts daily interesting facts for its followers. One of the people behind the page tells Bored Panda that it's actually a three-person project. The creators also have big plans to expand to other social media platforms. They didn't reveal any specific plans yet, but their format of bite-sized pieces of useful and interesting information would definitely do well on TikTok!

The creators think that the best aspect of their page is that people can learn something new in a fun way. "Our audience gains exposure to a wealth of unique information that extends beyond conventional learning offered in schools," they told Bored Panda. "This includes fascinating and amusing details and unusual facts, elevating their knowledge through an entertaining approach."

They also shared one fact they found especially captivating through their years as curators of this page. In 1963, 16-year-old Bruce McAllister mailed letters to 150 authors to prove to his English teacher that there was no conscious symbolism in their works. 75 writers responded, among whom were Jack Kerouac ("No."), Isaac Asimov ("Heavens, no!"), Ray Bradbury ("The best symbolism is always unsuspected and natural."), and Ayn Rand ("Your questions do not make sense.").

We like to learn facts, especially when they're about cute animals, our health, or our everyday lives. These bite-sized snippets of information come from research and scientific studies. For example, I honestly wanted to believe the TikToks that swore rosemary oil/water would help my hair start growing faster. They even said it's 'scientifically proven!' 

However, even if you read something in a 'scientific study,' it doesn't automatically make it an undeniable truth. Those of us who are not researchers might think that there's a good checks and balances system in the scientific publishing world. But the reality is not as black and white as we'd like to imagine.

In 2014, the blogger behind the chemistry site Compound Interest, Andy Brunning, created a pretty comprehensive chart that lists some flaws that might help to spot 'bad science.' He mentions 12 points that might help evaluate whether that science news article you just read is for real or might be bogus.

The first thing we can do, according to him, is look at the headlines. Articles with titles that seem sensationalized or clickbaity should immediately raise suspicion. News articles sometimes might misrepresent the findings of scientific research. Brunning recommends checking out the scientific article and not always trusting the news article blindly.

In some cases, companies employ scientists to carry out studies or invest in their research and development. It's always useful to check if there's no conflict of interest between the researchers and the investors, as the results might get misrepresented for personal or financial gain.

Now let's get into the more technical side of the studies. Brunning points out that research where the sample size is bigger tends to "give more representative results." What's more, the sample of participants should represent a bigger portion of the population. There should also be a control group – a number of participants that do not receive a substance, treatment, etc. 

Then we have to think about the reporting of the results. Good research shouldn't cherry-pick results to support a hypothesis. So the scientists should include all results, even if they don't support the claims they made before conducting the research. Other researchers should also be able to replicate the same results. If there is something only one lab has discovered and no one has been able to replicate it since – something might be fishy there.

Some of us might have seen the phrase 'peer-reviewed' when we've checked scientific articles. When a study is peer-reviewed, it means that other scientists have reviewed and critiqued it. And while such articles can be more trustworthy and of higher quality, the process isn't perfect and this fact doesn't make the research irrefutable.

Dr. Michelle Wong, chemistry Ph.D., science educator, and cosmetic chemist explained the flaws in the aforementioned rosemary-helps-hair-growth study that many social media influencers cited as evidence in a recent video. She also explained in more detail how peer-reviewed studies work and how we as consumers (of media and products) can spot bad science.

Wong points out some problems with peer-reviewed studies in one of her videos. Not all topics get much attention in the science world. Papers published in fields such as epidemiology, genetics, climate change, or artificial intelligence get the most attention nowadays. Naturally, there's less scrutiny for less popular topics. Not a lot of scientists are discussing and critiquing the studies in less popular fields; thus, that research can be less reliable.

The other problem is that peer reviewing is voluntary, unrewarding work. Scientists don't get paid for reviewing (especially reviewing well) new research. It's anonymous and variable, Wong points out, so the quality can vary. Sometimes peer reviewers might not read the paper as closely if they know it might not get a lot of attention in the future.