Talk:Junk science

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

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 [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! --PhineasBogg 13:49, 29 December 2007 (EST)

I went ahead and made this change. --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?) --Ed Poor Talk 22:57, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

Possible Merger With Pseudoscience

  • Keep Junk Science. We need this. 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). -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. -Ilikecake 22:57, 25 December 2008 (EST)
IlikeCake, are there any parts of this article you suggest keeping when merged? --₮K/Admin/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. -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: -Ilikecake 19:59, 10 January 2009 (EST)
Personal tools