I'm going to provide a little information about how science works.
I have a PhD. That does not mean that what I write is necessarily correct. It does not even mean that what I write about genetics or biology is necessarily correct. (Of course I try to insure that it is always valid science but no one is perfect). Science has a formal system - called peer review that provides readers of formally published scientific material with a certain level of confidence that the material is scientifically valid, follows accepted scientific practices, is valid logically, etc. It is far from perfect but it is valuable.
When a scientific researcher has done some experiments, or made some observations, or produced some theory they write an article (called a paper) and send it to a peer-reviewed journal. There the editor decides if it meets the journal's requirements, etc., and if it does then it is sent to two or more experts on the topic covered by the paper. They decide if the science is valid, etc., and whether the paper is accepted for publication, rejected or has to be modified. Many papers are rejected for one reason or another.
After the paper has been published other experts on the topic may read it and if they disagree with the paper they may send a letter or short note to the editor which may in turn be published in the journal after going through the same sorts of processes, etc.
Readers of the journal, who are not experts on given topics are able to have some confidence that the published peer-reviewed articles are good quality science.
When one publishes scientific articles, books, etc., on the internet there is no review system. There is little way that readers not expert in the topics can determine how much confidence they can place on the material they read.
Articles published in the Daylily Journal of the American Hemerocallis Society that have scientific information have been reviewed by the Scientific Sub-committee. Readers can have some confidence that the material is valid science.
