2004 Junk Science Awards
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 19:38:33 -0700
--------
http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/junkscienceawards2004.htm
--
"If you can't be the head, don't be
the backside because there is nothing
there but a tail."
-- Saddam Hussein
Correspondent:: Unclaimed Mysteries
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:10:33 GMT
--------
nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/junkscienceawards2004.htm
>
Junk Science = Science that has a bad impact on my stock portfolio.
--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
Correspondent:: Baldin Pramer
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 08:37:32 -0700
--------
Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
>
>> http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/junkscienceawards2004.htm
>>
>
> Junk Science = Science that has a bad impact on my stock portfolio.
It is a good idea to be skeptical, but labeling every statistical and
scientific finding with which you disagree "junk" is junk journalism.
Steve Milloy has a definite set of biases informed by his political
positions. That said, he has pretty good scientific credentials for a
Fox commentator.
--
Sir Baldin Pramer, R.P.A.
Correspondent:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:17:04 -0700
--------
Baldin Pramer wrote:
>
> Unclaimed Mysteries wrote:
> > nu-monet v7.0 wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/junkscienceawards2004.htm
> >>
> >
> > Junk Science = Science that has a bad
> > impact on my stock portfolio.
>
> It is a good idea to be skeptical, but labeling
> every statistical and scientific finding with
> which you disagree "junk" is junk journalism.
> Steve Milloy has a definite set of biases informed
> by his political positions. That said, he has pretty
> good scientific credentials for a Fox commentator.
That being said, what is needed is a set of criteria
for bad science. Not just the science itself, but how
it is publicized, and how others use it.
First of all, "good science" is not the same as research.
"Science" has rules. And when you wish to perform a
"scientific experiment", it should imply the following:
1) The experiment is theorized, set up, conducted,
measured and publicized according to the rules of science.
2) What is discovered is less important than HOW it was
discovered, that is, by following the rules.
3) What is discovered is ONLY discovered in relation to
the rules. That is, circular logic. "You win the game
by playing as closely as you can to all the rules. What
you win is playing as closely as you could to the rules."
Actual outcomes don't matter. Points don't matter.
This is a point lost on anti-evolutionists: science
can be extrapolated to reality, but that is only an
extrapolation, it ceases to be "scientific." Science only
"proves" things by the rules of science. And such "proof"
only applies to the experiment.
"Research", however, does not have to be pure science.
It can use unscientific methods that are still quite
effective, and even downright accurate: but they are NOT
scientific. That is, they do not conform to the strict
rules.
So what is "Junk Science?"
1) Complete lies based on research or science that never
happened. (Usually performed by non-scientists.)
2) Extrapolations or interpolations of research or science
that are in no way justified by their results. (Again,
most often done by outsiders.)
3) Mis-representing research as pure science. Using
anecdotal evidence, irreproduceable or unrecorded
observations, etc.
4) Research or science that has been corrupted in the
process: conflict of interest, fraud, falsification, lack
of or conflicted peer review, theft and plagiarism, and
other assorted ethical violations.
5) Technological misuse. Initially good science or
research that is marketed before its parameters are
fully known, sometimes resulting in disaster. Good
examples are Thiolidimide and cold fusion.
6) Political misuse. Using the credibility of researchers
and scientists for political ends. Involves all of the
above.
And 2004 alone produced a bushel basket full of such
junk science.
--
"We're going to take things away from
you on behalf of the common good."
-- Hillary Clinton
Correspondent:: HellPope Huey
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 06:52:56 GMT
--------
In article <41D9A840.654F@succeeds.com>,
"nu-monet v7.0" wrote:
> And 2004 alone produced a bushel basket full of such
> junk science.
SHUT THE GODDAMNED DYSENTERY-DEHYDRATED FUCK UP WITH YOUR GODDAMNED
UPPITY, TWITCHING FACTS AND TELL ME HOW YOU THINK RABBITS SOUND WHEN
THEY FUCK. POSTING FACTS TO ALT.SLACK IS OFF-TOPIC. STOP POSTING TO OUR
FINE NEWSGROUP WITH YOUR MENTAL RAFT MADE OF DEAD, LASHED-TOGETHER THAI
CHILDREN AND SAILING IT TO THE ISLAND OF GODDAMNED FACTS THAT DON'T MAKE
REV. EPOCH'S LIFE ONE BIT BETTER. NOW WHAT ABOUT THOSE RABBITS???
--
HellPope Huey
A lurking tsunami in every hot tub,
a budding conspiracy in every sock drawer,
a potential holocaust in every birth control dispenser.
Are you bored? Are you jaded?
Has all enthusiasm faded?
Are you one of those people like glazed fruit
Who sit there in shell shock
Till the dot on your screen
disappears?
- Creme & Godley, "L"
My mind is a swamp
glutted with the wreckage
of ancient sitcom gags.
- Nenslo