Talk:Fake science

2016-06-17T12:57:39Z

PureCommunist: /* neutrality */ new section

== Need a better example ==

I think we need a better example. Given that even Phillip Morris now admits second hand smoke is dangerous, this is not a good example of incorrect science. I propose adding an example about [[http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM Eggs and Cholesterol]]. When studies had found that Cholesterol clogs arteries in humans and there was Cholesterol in eggs, the government began recommending people not eat eggs. However, what was missing from this science was a causal link. That is, it was not shown that the intake of Cholesterol in diet causes an increase of Cholesterol in blood. We now know that most Cholesterol in blood is made by the body in overweight individuals and individuals with high saturated fat intakes. So eggs are now fine to eat -- as long as they are not combined with high calorie, high fat side dishes.

I will wait a couple days before making the change to see if anyone has any input or better examples. Thanks! --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 13:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

: I went ahead and made this change. --[[User:PhineasBogg|PhineasBogg]] 16:57, 30 December 2007 (EST)

::Now do the same for the "[[ozone hole]]" and [[skin cancer]]; is there a [[ultraviolet]] link, or what? (After that, maybe you can tell us whether air temperature drives [[carbon dioxide]] or is it the other way around?) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

==Possible Merger With Pseudoscience==
*'''Keep Junk Science'''. We need this. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 13:48, 15 October 2007 (EDT)
**The discussion isn't about whether or not the article should be deleted, it's whether or not the article should be merged into the article on [[pseudoscience]]. I think that everybody would agree that we need an article on one or the other, but the debate is on whether or not we need both (as the topics are very similar if not different words for the same). -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)
*'''Go ahead and merge'''. This article doesn't really say anything that that is specific to "junk science" versus pseudoscience. At best create a new section on the pseudoscience page for "junk science," but really the articles are functionally the same. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)

::IlikeCake, are there any parts of this article you suggest keeping when merged? --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 20:55, 10 January 2009 (EST)
:::Hmm...possibly retain the mention that junk science can arise from a misinterpretation of actual evidence? After briefly skimming both articles again I think that this is the one piece of info that's unique to the Junk Science article. -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 20:35, 14 January 2009 (EST)

== 2nd hand smoke ==

The claim that liberals say 2nd hand smoke has now been conclusively proven to cause nearly 20% of urban deaths definitely needs ever a supporting source, or removal.
: I have removed that piece of information. "20% of urban deaths" means absolutely nothing. Is that deaths per year? Deaths ever? How do you define "urban deaths"? It also implies that second-hand smoke isn't harmful ''at all,'' which is completely false. See the American Lung Association's fact sheet: http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 -[[User:Ilikecake|Ilikecake]] 19:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)

== neutrality ==

I see mentioning soon that liberals use junk science , but what about conservatives? there has been no evidence of tuff that has happaned in bible is real.

Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Fake science