Difference between revisions of "Fake science"
(wikify) |
PhineasBogg (talk | contribs) (Updated examples of junk science) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
'''Junk science''' is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see [[propaganda]]. | '''Junk science''' is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see [[propaganda]]. | ||
| − | + | Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the [[scientific method]]. It is akin to [[politicized science]], i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.<ref> [http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.25458/pub_detail.asp Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health]</ref> | |
| − | + | In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol<ref>http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM</ref>. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood. | |
| + | |||
| + | It was at one time claimed that the use of initial studies on secondhand smoke to justify smoking bans was junk science. However since then additional studies have corroborated the initial ones and even Phillip Morris acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be hazardous"<ref>http://www.phillipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp. Accessed April 26, 2007.</ref>. | ||
All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports. | All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports. | ||
Revision as of 21:52, December 30, 2007
Junk science is the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based mainly upon whether its conclusions support the answers (or views) favored by the promoters; see propaganda.
Junk science consists of giving poorly done scientific work the same authority as work which conforms to the scientific method. It is akin to politicized science, i.e., the selective use of scientific evidence to reach predetermined conclusions and support extra-scientific political goals.[1]
In some cases, junk science may result from a misinterpretation of previous sound scientific studies. An example of this is the misinterpretation of the research on eggs and cholesterol[2]. Studies had found that eggs contained cholesterol and that cholesterol in blood contributed to heart disease. So as a result of these studies, people were advised again eating eggs. What ws missing, however, was a study showing that the cholesterol in blood is a direct result of cholesterol intake in diet. We know now that that is not the case, that saturated fat intake and overall body fat are the primary contributors to cholesterol production in blood.
It was at one time claimed that the use of initial studies on secondhand smoke to justify smoking bans was junk science. However since then additional studies have corroborated the initial ones and even Phillip Morris acknowledged that secondhand smoke can be hazardous"[3].
All sides in scientific controversies say that they condemn junk science, so this leaves the lay reader with the task of determining who is telling the truth. The best way is to examine the facts and reasoning in scientific reports.
First, of course, the reader must penetrate the maze of confusing disinformation surrounding any controversy.
- The three great strategies for obscuring an issue are to introduce irrelevancies, to arouse prejudice, and to excite ridicule.... ---Bergen Evans, The Natural History of Nonsense [4]
See also
References
Further reading
- Peter W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.
External links
- Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health - Joel Schwartz - January 16, 2007