Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + +
raw paste - wait for the polish
{{merge|pseudoscience}}
{{merge|pseudoscience}}
Graham, I think "junk science" is generally the promotion of a finding as "scientific" or "unscientific" based purely upon whether - as you said - its conclusions support the answers (or views) you want to promote.
Like, if you want to ban smoking in public places because (a) you personally hate the smell of the smoke or the dizzy feeling you get when you inhale a whiff or (b) you want to make other people take better care of their health - but you say that secondhand smoke is dangerous to others even if this is not supported by the evidence - then you are engaging in junk science.
'''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>