alt Hacker News> There is a vast difference between a student reading from a textbook and a researcher / scientist reading studies and/or papers.
Not really. Both are learning new things. Neither has the time or access to resources to replicate even a small fraction of things learned. Neither will ever make direct use of the vast majority of things learned.
Thus both depend on a cooperative model where trust is given to third parties to whom knowledge aggregation is outsourced. In that sense a textbook and prestigious peer reviewed journals serve the same purpose.
Papers in any journal (even or especially Nature, depending on your prior) should have a significantly larger degree of skepticism shown towards them than statements in reputable textbooks (which also should not be taken as complete gospel). Papers are a 'hey, we did a thing once, here's what we think it means' from a source that is very strongly motivated to do or find something novel or interesting, even if you trust that there is no fraud they are not something to approach uncritically.