Difference between revisions of "Fake science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→References: cite) |
(See also Politics of science) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{merge|pseudoscience}} | {{merge|pseudoscience}} | ||
| − | '''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> | + | '''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> |
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. | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
: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 <ref>[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race]</ref> | :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 <ref>[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race]</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==See also== | ||
| + | *[[Politics of science]] | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 18:47, July 11, 2007
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with [[::pseudoscience|pseudoscience]]. (Discuss)
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]
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 [2]
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