Not only are you wrong, but ordinary people can see you are wrong.

 From Laypeople Can Predict Which Social-Science Studies Will Be Replicated Successfully by Suzanne Hoogeveen, et al.  From the Abstract:

Large-scale collaborative projects recently demonstrated that several key findings from the social-science literature could not be replicated successfully. Here, we assess the extent to which a finding’s replication success relates to its intuitive plausibility. Each of 27 high-profile social-science findings was evaluated by 233 people without a Ph.D. in psychology. Results showed that these laypeople predicted replication success with above-chance accuracy (i.e., 59%). In addition, when participants were informed about the strength of evidence from the original studies, this boosted their prediction performance to 67%. We discuss the prediction patterns and apply signal detection theory to disentangle detection ability from response bias. Our study suggests that laypeople’s predictions contain useful information for assessing the probability that a given finding will be replicated successfully.

 Highly pertinent given the high replication failure rates to date, particularly in sociology and psychology. 

The take-away is that if you are a reasonably bright person, if you see social-science findings which seem counter-intuitive and unreasonable, you have good reason to go with your good sense over the academic rigamarole.  You are pretty likely to be right.

No wonder academia is falling into such untrustworthy disrepute.  Not only are they publishing overwhelmingly false research findings (at least in the humanities) but the findings are so manifestly obvious that ordinary citizens can reasonably accurately estimate that they are wrong.

Not a branding I would want to hang my hat on.