> A lot of understanding in psychology/health from a few decades ago seem to be deemed nonsensical nowadays, and in many of the cases I agree with the newer conclusions.
This is why the Lindy heuristic mentioned by a sibling comment to yours is relevant.
If X% of the consensus in a field was overturned twenty years ago, then again ten years ago, your expectation should be that in ten years, X% of the current consensus will be thrown out as nonsense as well. So it's not necessarily that the old information was more accurate, but you can't interpret the new information well without it. What's X in your field? Maybe 5%, maybe 80%, then you should look at the field very differently.
Of course, you could be living through another annus mirabilis, where a new consensus is established that then stands for centuries. But this is by definition unlikely, so there must be strong evidence available.
This is why the Lindy heuristic mentioned by a sibling comment to yours is relevant.
If X% of the consensus in a field was overturned twenty years ago, then again ten years ago, your expectation should be that in ten years, X% of the current consensus will be thrown out as nonsense as well. So it's not necessarily that the old information was more accurate, but you can't interpret the new information well without it. What's X in your field? Maybe 5%, maybe 80%, then you should look at the field very differently.
Of course, you could be living through another annus mirabilis, where a new consensus is established that then stands for centuries. But this is by definition unlikely, so there must be strong evidence available.