Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Fake science

244 bytes added, 01:15, December 30, 2010
content
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 has been on the increase because in recent years science has become increasingly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> rejecting God and his works in explanations of the world and all of human experience. Instead readily embracing pseudo science such as [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[Counterexamples to Relativity|relativity]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]] based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates [[creation]]. Consequently the rigid [[logic]] of [[creation science]] is gaining in importance, enabling intelligent people to distinguish real science from atheistic secular junk science.
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 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.
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. ==Also See==
First, of course, the reader must penetrate the maze of confusing *[[disinformationCounterexamples to Evolution]] 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 <ref>*[http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html IQ and race[Counterexamples to an Old Earth]]</ref> ==Also See==*[[Counterexamples to Relativity]]
*[[Global warming]]
*[[ClimateGate]]
83
edits