Fake science

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rutger (Talk | contribs) at 12:41, December 26, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with pseudoscience. (Discuss)

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 against eating eggs. What was 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.

A more recent example is the hoopla over secondhand smoke, which liberals say has now been conclusively proven to cause nearly 20% of urban deaths. Anti-smoking activists base this claim on small studies while ignoring larger studies; see cherry-picking. [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 [3]

See also

References

  1. Burying Evidence: The Union of Concerned Scientists' Unscientific Claims about Air Pollution and Health
  2. http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/eggs.HTM
  3. IQ and race

Further reading

  • Peter W. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, 1993. ISBN 0-465-02624-9.

External links