![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Junk science claims are largely a result of the lack of factual verification by the modern media and the consuming public."
Junk science is caused by improper motives and the media is no less subject to those motives.-- B
I wouldn't consider the Tobacco Institute Research Council or the Cato Institute to be astroturfing per se, since they don't claim to be "grassroots" but rather intellectual/scientific institutions. - Gwalla 02:18, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create a "Sound Science" entry? This is the term used by the industrial lobbies and the Bush government to opposse regulations. It is used as the opposite of junk science.-- Frank.visser 23:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Tobacco Institute Research Council may have a narrowly-defined goal, but the Cato Institute is a think-tank foundation. They probably shouldn't be lumped together.
Junk science is a result of so many groups being crisis driven. The key to recognition of junk science is the ignoring or discrediting of facts that do not fit the theory. Politics and money lead people to create a crisis and then look only for facts to support it. Politicians, Media, Scientists, and Lawyers all have something to gain from hyping a crisis. One group raises a crisis then the others all jump on board and quote each other as proof that something must be done. Politicians and Newspeople spend hours pontificating for votes and ratings while Scientists and Lawyers rake in cash. The conclusions are then reached before the facts are fully known and anyone who dares question the conclusions are branded by those benefiting from the conclusion as quacks. A study which supports junk science alway makes page one, while the inconvienient facts which debunk it end up on page 27, if mentioned at all.
Junk science From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Junk science is a term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. How does this not qualify?
I propose that the Bunk science article be merged into this one. It's just another term for what's really the same thing, and the Bunk science article is just a stub, so it seems logical to merge it here rather than the other way around. Comments on the proposed merge? Wesley 17:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this. There really wasn't much content to merge. -- Howrealisreal 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The content of the page illustrates the term well, but the examples seem to me one sided (left namely). In the spirit of objectivity shouldn't we show the junk science pushed by the other side? For example green organzations (see lomborg.com), the Club of Rome papers published in the '70s, and so on? Or would mentioning these contradict some sort of dogma? -- Spark Voidstar 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have put an entry at the bottom of Failed History about science that has been disproved - a valdid distinction from bad/junk science (any more examples than that given?).
Jackiespeel 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems odd that Huber's work isn't even mentioned here, although he popularized the term in the early 1990s. I'll fix things up a bit. -- Christofurio 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed the following unsourced bit:
If it is to be re-inserted, it will need to be worded better and supported by good references. That does not mean original research and one's own website links that have been previously removed. -- Vsmith 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been going on for awhile now, and he's shown no willingness to reform. I think perhaps it's time to take some sort of disciplinary action, such as blocking this user or taking it to arbitration. -- Sheldon Rampton 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Read what Standford's Journel wrote in October 1992 to JMG's Editor. And please take disciplinary action and make the geostatistical fraternity happy!. JWM-- Iconoclast 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This goes here. I not sure about this since the srticle doesn't claim it as a synonym and pseudoscience is also "bad". I think maybe it is better sending the redirect to Ben Goldacre; I typed it in looking for the srticle on his column. Opinions? -- A Geek Tragedy 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a link to junkscience.com in this article? It's a blatantly partisan site which isn't on the side of science by any stretch of the imagination. See Steven Milloy. -- BenRG 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Added a neutral definition of 'junk science' before the dive into a fairly one-sided presentation. Also, found an earlier source for coining the term. Both of these additions, however, point to a less divisive more constructive use of the term. Stonecarver Thursday, 12-OCT-2006
I made a previous attempt to increase the NPOV on this page by introducing the following issues:
I. How to address the subject scientific claimants that: A. Purposely omit model uncertainties to strengthen claims? B. Purposely ignore contrary findings? See Testing hypotheses suggested by the data:How to do it wrong C. Frame results in a representation that favors the preferred hypothesis (using RR instead of NNT). D. The influence of Publication bias?
II. Justification for broader coverage of the subject of 'junk science' both historically and contextually: A. Richard Feynman referred to the above practices as 'junk' science in his Caltech address in 1974. B. Sokal was able to pass off junk to a purported scientific journal without peer review. C. Cognitive Bias led to junk results in Charles Elkan's revelation of 'Magical Thinking in Data Mining.' D. Brignell's explanation of the Uncertainty Principle is a sound principle of Sampling and the Fourier Transform and points up some uncertainties in scientific claims over large spans of time by sampling over small spans of time. E. The current political connotation of 'junk science' will pass, returning to the more vital use of the term that reminds us 'not to fool ourselves' (as Feynman would say). Stonecarver Thursday, 12-OCT-2006
The term "junk science" is clearly a pejorative rather than an analytical term. Compare it, for example, to the term " pseudoscience." Like "junk science," "pseudoscience" assumes that a meaningful distinction should be made between good or reliable science and bad or unreliable claims which purport to be science. However, "pseudoscience" offers principles such as reproducibility, intersubjective verifiability and Karl Popper's "falsifiability" to distinguish between the two. By contrast, there are no generally agreed-upon methodological standards for distinguishing between "sound" science and "junk" science.
Moreover, the word "junk" in the phrase "junk science" is a clear example of name-calling, a propaganda technique that was identified as such nearly a century ago by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. As a website devoted to the study of propaganda explains, "The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence."
The term "junk" is clearly a negative symbol. Calling something "junk science" is no different than calling it "shit science" or "pinhead science" or using some other negative symbol. Trying to define "junk science" as though it were simply an objective term for describing "bad science" is therefore inaccurate and inappropriate. It would be like trying to give serious, nonpejorative definitions to terms such as "moonbat" or "scumbag." -- Sheldon Rampton 09:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear that the use of 'junk science' is solely connected with some kind of political jingoism. It's broader, perhaps, more socially redeeming use in the current literature is concerned with the quality of scientific claims or their presentation to the lay or legal public. The current references below have a common thread that connects back to the Feynmann speech wherein you will find the word 'junk' used referring to pseudoscience and science poorly done.
Matson, J. V., Daou, S. F., & Soper, J. G. (2004). Effective Expert Witnessing. CRC Press. (p. 31) ‘At its worst, junk science is the willful manipulation of biased data, false or erroneous conclusions, and fraudulent methodology in the attempt to “scientifically” substantiate a point that, in reality, cannot be substantiated. At its best, junk science is science or theory that has not been subjected to the scientific method and therefore lacks defensible support of the scientific community.’
Morrone, M., & Lohner, T. W. (2002). Sound Science, Junk Policy: Environmental Health Science and the Decision-Making Process. Auburn House/Greenwood. (p. 38) ‘Junk science in the courtroom emanates from testimony by expert witnesses hired not for their scientific expertise, but for their willingness, for a price, to say whatever is needed to make the client’s case.’
Many scientific claims in thesis defenses, scientific editorials, court rooms, and the wider media have been _deservedly_ labeled 'junk science.' It is a longstanding scientific practice of good hygiene to do so. Remember cold fusion? The current popular use of the term is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. To omit a broader use from the presentation because it lacks the some transient emo-political charge is 'junk wiki.' Stonecarver Thursday, 13-OCT-2006
Assertions (above) that scientists are voicing legal or political opinions when they are quoted with their credentials is a cognitive bias called the ‘representativeness’ heuristic. Consider the probability conjunction rules: P (S ∩ C) ≤ P (C) and P (S ∩ C) ≤ P (C). The probability that a Scientist is a Corporate sock puppet (scientist ∩ puppet = S ∩ C) is less than either of the probabilities that subject is a scientist (scientist = S) or a sock puppet (corporate = C). The more parsimonious explanation is that a scientist quoted as a scientist is simply expressing a scientific opinion. The burden of proof is upon those who assert the conjunction, and no such proof has been offered so far in this discussion against my citations. I provide even more citations showing more than occasional use of the phrase among scientists, associations of scientists, and science educators addressing objections above:
Sound Science for Endangered Species. (2002, September). In Science and Technology in Congress. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/stc/stc02-09.pdf. “Although most individuals would agree that sound science is preferable to junk science, fewer recognize what makes a scientific study ‘good’ or ‘bad’.”
Hill, C. T. (2001). Fifty Years of Science and Technology Policy in Ten Minutes. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, 107. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from American Association for the Advancement of Science Web site: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch7.pdf. 'This [integrity of the corpus of scientific and technical knowledge] includes specific issues like the adequacy and functioning of the peer-review system; managing fraud in science; and dealing with pseudo-science, junk science, and, most important, self-delusion in science.'
Goertzel, T. (2002, January/February). Econometric Modeling as Junk Science. The Skeptical Inquirer, 26(1), 19-23. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Rutgers University Web site: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm. ‘If you were misled by any of these studies [on criminal deterrence], you may have fallen for a pernicious form of junk science: the use of mathematical models with no demonstrated predictive capability to draw policy conclusions....Regression models that have not been demonstrated to work with fresh data, other than the data used to create them, are junk science.’
Baron, L. A. F. (2001, February). The Influence of "Junk Science" and the Role of Science Education. Imprimis, 30(2). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Hillsdale College Web site: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2001/february/default.htm. Dr. Baron, Chemistry Professor and Department Chair wrote. 'So-called “junk science” bypasses this system of peer review....Presented directly to the public by people variously described as “experts” or “activists,” often with little or no supporting evidence, this “junk science” undermines the ability of elected representatives, jurists, and others — including everyday consumers — to make rational decisions.'
Murray, B. (2006, November 12). The Methods of Science and Journalism. FACSNET, science and technology. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Foundation for American Communications Web site: http://www.facsnet.org/tools/sci_tech/methods.php3. Quotes Dr. David L. Goodstein, Ph.D., Vice Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech,'…you could tell the difference between junk science and real science, you could simply say someone didn't follow the [scientific] method.' Stonecarver 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the neutral emphasis of the Junk science article.20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Dan Agin, the author of the book Junk Science discussed here in several places. I'd like to add a few comments that some people might find helpful.
1) In a "trade" book (as this one was), the title is usually chosen by the publisher. If the author has some clout, he can press to change it. I had no clout and no reason to object, and so I just accepted the title. Irrespective of the title, the book is essentially about pseudoscience, and it's not the first or last book on the subject. I think the Wiki category "Pseudoscience" is more important than "Junk Science".
2) I did not in fact know about the right-wing use of "junk science", or about its use by Steve Molloy, until after the book was published. I was unfortunately hardly focused on conservative media memes and buzz-words. I certainly did not know that the phrase had been essentially coopted by the media as a description of anti-conservative science-based policy. Seeing the title, many people thought the book was pro-conservative, which was unfortunate for sales, and a surprise to various conservative media who invited me to talk about the book and then discovered my politics.
3) A small part of the book caused a controversy in Wiki, the part about the physicist Schoen and the discoveries of his apparent fabrications. The original Schoen page included several paragraphs added, I think in mid-2006, that were lifted out of my book. The book itself was published in November 2006. In early 2006, I offered advance copies of the book by Email to anyone who asked for it via ScienceWeek. The manuscript of the book was turned in to the publisher in August 2005. Some people at Wiki have apparently thought I might have lifted the material on Schoen from Wiki, but I assure you it was the other way around. Apparently one of those people who had an advance copy directly or indirectly wrote the Wiki paragraphs about Schoen.People need to remember that manuscripts are turned in to publishers at least nine months before they are actually published, and that many advance copies are sent out, bound and unbound long before publication. Anyone who writes pages for Wiki should be cautioned that all such advance material is under copyright. The simple fact that a book appears in print after something in the book has appeared in Wiki is never evidence that the material was lifted from Wiki. Icarus530 ( talk) 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The article should be reviewed and statements redacted according to Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material. Stonecarver 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've cut the following paragraph because of numerous problems:
-- Stephan Schulz 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Peterrhyslewis 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You have not explained why you have deleted my contribution. As a practising scientist, I think you should spell out exactly what problems you have with my write-up.
Peterrhyslewis 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You clearly have not read the current Wiki article on eugenics, and the point I am tryng to make is that "consensus" is in no way an argument for any scientific theory. Perhaps you yourself should attend a University course, because I happen to teach at a Unversity, and we try to instill a sceptical attitude to theories which claim to be supported by a "consensus". If you would like to access junkscience.com, you will see there that anthropogenic global warming proponents are accused by that website of beng "junk science". Wiki users should receive a balanced viewpoint, not a viewpoint biased one way or another. Clearly, you are simply quite unaware of the way science advances.
Peterrhyslewis 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently, User:Stonecarver made this update, [1] referring to the work of Judith Kleinfeld. If Kleinfeld's work were a print publication, especially a refereed one, there would be no problem in citing it. However it appears to be a blog posting at the Independent Womens Forum, a political activist web site ( http://www.iwf.org). Linking to blogs is frowned upon by WP:EL. I suggest that this item be removed. EdJohnston 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent Design is actually being cited in this page as an obvious example of junk science. First, there is no need for such a mention here and it looks pretty much like POV pushing. The article is still just as good without this mention.
Also, although I understand that 99% of scientists do not believe in ID and rather believe in evolution, this does not make ID "junk science" per se. The debate is heated in the US and elsewhere to throw ID out of schools and I understand that, but the truth of the matter is that science still does no fully explain life. Science about the origins of life remains at best knowledge, but cannot, by far, be considered truth.
Albert Einstein, a scientist that you may know, said that "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
Please read about epistemology and the philosophy of science before pushing ID as being so obviously junk that it deserves to be mentionned on this page as an example of junk science. Controversial science or pseudoscience? Yes. Junk? Bring me the full explanation of the origins of life then I'll agree. -- Childhood's End 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Give an authoritative source showing the use of the phrase 'junk science' referring directly to ID and I would support placing it in the 'controversy' section of the article. We tried earlier to merge 'junk science' with other forms of bad science (see above) and the group did not approve. Therefore, I would say that some people think ID is pseudoscience, or cargo cult science, or some other heresy. But if a court opinion, congressional testimony, or a peer reviewed journal article does not call ID 'junk science' specifically, then it is just your opinion no matter how obvious it seems to you. I seem to recall a court justice using 'junk science' with respect to ID, but I can't recall where I saw it and I would support including it. Stonecarver 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I am not a fan of Intelligent design, the inclusion of a pointer to that article as a 'See also' item seems like random mud-slinging. It might be OK to mention intelligent design in this article if it were discussed explicitly in the text. I notice that the phrase 'Junk science' occurs in the Intelligent design article but only with a citation to a popular article. The discussion over there is not backed up by reference to any scientific work, so it's not as though a 'See also' here really adds to the value or credibility of *this* article. EdJohnston 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Statements in the article that violate WP:NOR will be removed until a citation is provided. Although some statements above might seem 'obvious,' this does not justify inclusion in the article without a citation to a source that specifically supports it. See WP:SYNT. Stonecarver 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design needs to be mentioned in the article - it is the junk science with the highest visibility right now, and one most people have heard about. As it is a clear case of classic junk, it is the perfect illustration of junk science. It is more visible and widespread than AIDS junk science, which is covered in the article. I have three sources here:
but it seems to be that the book Junk Science by Agin should be a source, if not the primary source. Guettarda, do you have a copy of this? Would you be interested in writing the paragraph, or do you want someone else to take a stab at it? KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just checked, the phrase 'junk science' appears nowhere in any of the Kitzmiller vs Dover court docs. The ID link up to now is just WP:SYNT. The sources mentioned above are full of sound and fury, but they aren't authoritative. I would welcome some better sources that justify the ID link remaining on the article page. They just haven't been cited in the discussion so far. Is Agin footnoted? Stonecarver 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The assertion that ID is junk science is well supported. While I don't know if there is any peer-reviewed literature which calls it that (is there any peer reviewed literature which calls anything JS?) it is well established that ID is considered junk science, has been called junk science, and also fits the description. I'd say there's enough evidence to discuss it in the article. Including it as a "see also" seems obvious... "See also" points readers toward related subjects. ID is a related subject.
Intelligent Design is actually being cited in this page as an obvious example of junk science. First, there is no need for such a mention here and it looks pretty much like POV pushing. The article is still just as good without this mention.
I agree with this statement and have removed the section, you either need to include all questionable science or none, plus as defined in the article it is not possible to say what is and what isn't junk science, because it is political. -- Theblog 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me how any of this:
The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [1] [2] [3] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars.
relates to this history of Junk Science. Its all personal stuff about Steve Milloy, that has no bearing on actual Junk Science or its history.-- Theblog 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Google "Junk Science". Milloy is the main promoter of the term, and exposure of the fact that he has used it to promote the interests of the tobacco lobby obviously has an effect on the credibility with which it is viewed.
JQ
01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems, to me, questionable to list Milloy's book "Junk Science Judo" in the references section without some serious qualification. For one example -- just one of what I suspect are many questionable claims -- on page 145, referring to DDT, Milloy wrote Rachel Carson "alleged that DDT decimated bird populations and caused cancer in humans. Public fear over DDT was 'validated' in 1972 when the Environmental Protection Agency banned virtually all uses of DDT. But Carson's concerns over DDT have yet to be justified, and the EPA's ban of DDT was based on politics, not science." This looks to me to be closer to a promulgation of junk science, and not an explanation of it. (Carson did not allege DDT causes cancer, though subsequent research suggests it does and it is listed as a "probable" human carcinogen by the American Cancer Society and ATDSR; the U.S. ban actually covered only use on crops -- most other uses were already suspended; the EPA ban was challenged in court for lacking scientific basis, twice, and the federal courts determined in both cases that there is ample evidence of DDT's harms; almost all research since 1962 reinforces harms of DDT, or opens new fields of concern about newly-discovered harms; the entire world joined in with the National Academy of Science's call to abolish DDT for its harmful qualities in a treaty, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty, which surely is not based on politics having no justification in science.)Perhaps someone else should look at the book to see whether my concerns are justified. Edarrell ( talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
An IP deleted without comment a reference to a book by Lora May Levett, "Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science". This book is not found on Amazon or Worldcat, and is not found on Lora Levett's own web site, so we can safely assume it doesn't exist. I *did* find an online abstract of a paper of hers with a similar title, at [4], "Improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science.." This, however, is not a book, it is only an abstract. I suggest that the apparently nonexistent book be dropped from the reference list. I don't believe that the abstract is helpful enough to be added as a reference. EdJohnston 00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is currently no mention in the article of the intended analogy with "junk food". I had always had the impression that this was the rhetorical point of the term "junk science": that it referred to results that are marketed as science, but are not really "nourishing" (that is, informative) as science should be. -- FOo ( talk) 08:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would welcome a more extensive rationale for a large deletion by John Quiggin, more than 10% of the article, which has the edit summary 'Trimmed due to WP:WEIGHT'. This is in a sense a 'popular culture' topic since you can't go into a lab and test something to see if it's junk science. But any article changes should still have a detailed rationale. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sound and junk science are two sides of the same coin. I propose retitling this page to "Sound and junk science" and merging sound science into here. Alternatively we could not even change the title. II | ( t - c) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. Redirect and merge sound science into this article. The phrase is something of an artifact used by the tobacco industry to characterize its own conclusions while characterizing as junk science those conclusions which documented a number of adverse health effects associated with smoking. The phrase doesn't merit its own article but probably ought be mentioned here in the context of how politically charged the accusations and terminology can be on differing sides of a policy debate about which advocate's presentation of the research is a dispassionate summary based on the totality of evidence, and on the other hand which party's presentation is asserted by its opponents to be junk science that charrypicks the research to suit a predetermined preferred outcome. As is illustrated by the just-mentioned example of how the words were used by industry advocates, both of these characterizations ("junk science" and in this case "sound science") can be, and sometimes are, applied in opposite directions by both opposing sides in a policy debate when talking to the public in media sound bites. ... Kenosis ( talk) 20:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the passage which cites Paul Ehrlich as advocating public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge. Given his multi-year personal track record of incorrect environmental and population predictions one could argue that he is a practioner of junk science.
1967 - the battle to feed humanity is over
1968 - in the 1970s and 80s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death
US life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 the US population will decline to 22 million by 1999
1980 - the Ehrlich/Simon wager which Simon won even without the effects of inflation
I will not cite more lest this become tedious. I won't even venture into his unusual population control theories.
Please see the Wikipedia articles on 'The Population Bomb' by Paul Ehrlich and on Paul Ehrlich himself for a more expansive explanation of this.
His comments have an aroma of political hypocrisy in that HIS science is correct (even though he is quite often dramatically wrong ) while his opponents ( who may well be right) are incorrect. While Ehrlich is well known I question whether he should be considered an authority on this topic. Don't authorities on the whole need to be correct in order to be an authority ? Who is he (based on his often erroneous statements) to determine what is or what is not junk science?
Pedynowski remains as these comments are valid no matter how one views junk science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Vsmith, My point is that Paul Ehrlich can rationally be described based upon his public record regarding population growth, natural resource availability and other topics as a practitioner of junk science based on the article as it is written. This comment does not apply to his study of entomology. For him to be credited as an authority he must have some track record of credibility on the topic at hand. Since we are not discussing butterflies or environmental science what actually makes him an authority on junk science? His name alone or his popularity in other fields of study do not automatically confer knowledge and authority on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC) My personal likes and dislikes do not enter here. I have never met the individual and I do not have a personal opinion of him. My edit is based upon his credibility regarding the topic of discussion. One who opines outside their sphere of influence/field of study is a critic, not an authority. Paul Ehrlich may be an expert on Lepidoptera, but he has a public record over many years of repeated inaccuracy when he ventures outside of that science. I am not passing judgement on his skils and knowledge as a butterfly scientist. I am removing him as an authority on junk science. Perhaps you should have used some good faith and addressed my specific point as to why I de-sourced him as an authority on junk science instead of assuming that the edit was made to reflect what you believed to be my supposed personal preferences. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Vsmith, I accept your apology. Please clarify on what basis other than Paul Ehrlich's own opinion which he et al. state in the referenced scholarly paper you consider him to be an expert specifically on what constitutes junk science. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's be careful not to mislead about Ehrlich's science, or anyone else's, in an article on junk science. What are called false predictions by Ehrlich are not. Read the book. He lays out several different scenarios that may or may not happen, depending on what actions people take to prevent them from happening, and how soon. The scenarios he laid out are in some cases exclusive of other scenarios in the same book -- so citing one as a prediction runs into the difficult position that Ehrlich contradicted that prediction within a few pages -- clearly calling them "predictions" is unwarranted. Moreover, all his scenarios were based on humans failing to take certain actions. Much of his concerns were obviated by significant changes in U.S. law -- the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, for two examples -- and significant, unforeseen and fortunate interventions by, among others, the Rockefeller Foundation and its promotion of the work of Norman Borlaug, increasing food supplies. In short, let's not use a branch of junk science to shoot down a notable, useful and accurate citation. Edarrell ( talk) 09:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Below are some references which weren't really being used in the sound science article. We should focus on distinct facts, freely-accessible refs, and good explanation rather than collecting every reference; many of these articles rehash the same facts over and over.
II | ( t - c) 17:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The heading as originally "Controversy surrounding the term "Junk Science". It was shortened to "Controversy surrounding" which obviously doesn't work. Surrounding what? Then just "Controversy", but it's not about controversy surrounding Junk Science (of which there are many) but the term. So I changed it now to "Controversy surrounding the term", which I think is worse that the original but maybe can work as a compromise? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge this article with Pseudoscience and pathological science? HkFnsNGA ( talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here [6]. PPdd ( talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Vote here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this statement intended to connote that 'skeptics" like Singer & Seits are actually being given equal time in the media? If so, where are there views being given equal time?
Almost every reference to global warming or the ozone hole refers to a scientific consensus, and it's (in my experience) quite rare to see the views of 'contrarians' getting any time at all, let alone equal time. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No point in editing this article to include all the "junk science" that has been used over the years to justify the "medical benefits" of circumcision, unless others here participate. see www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf Debunk Da Junk ( talk) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik ( talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That's extremely odd because the information was known for two decades or so. Any idea why they would change their mind after the horse has already bolted? Viriditas ( talk) 05:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
These are additional current references to show the use of the phrase 'junk science' in the broader sense. Unless you think that doctors and professional organizations are just wrong or irrelevant in their interpretation of the phrase, these are yet more examples of a broader interpretation.
Baughman, F. A., Jr. MD. (2006). The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. Trafford Publishing. (p. 9) 'If ADHD was meant as a way merely to identify a set of behaviors with no inference of it being a neurological abnormality, that would be one thing...but the insistence that it exists in the same physical and provable realm as a real disease is a perversion of science, without even enough credibility to rise to the level of pseudoscience or junk science.'
Volume 106, Issue 4, Pages 601-607. (2006, April). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Misinformation (Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Retrieved October 25, 2006, from http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_adar0202_ENU_HTML.htm (p. 605) 'Ten Red Flags of Junk Science: 1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix. 2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen. 3. Claims that sound too good to be true. 4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study. 5. Recommendations based on a single study. 6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations. 7. Lists of "good" and "bad" foods. 8. Recommendations made to help sell a product. 9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review. 10. Recommendations from studies that ignore individual or group differences' Stonecarver Thursday, 26-OCT-2006
Use of the phrase 'junk science' has currency among scientists in a broader interpretation: BAPTISTE, P. J., & CHEN, Y. (2006, October 18). The Fall of the Scientific Wall. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515013 'Critics suggest that this system [Internet-based journals, such as, PLoS and arXiv] allows the rabble to promote “junk science” and argue that scientists will have to wade through a hundred worthless papers to find only one Nobel Prize-winning gem.' Stonecarver Monday, 30-OCT-2006
Another use of the phrase 'junk science' showing currency among scientists in a broader interpretation: Harris, T. (June 12, 2006). Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe. Canada Free Press. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm. Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia is quoted in the article as saying, "The man [Al Gore] is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Stonecarver Thursday, 2-NOV-2006
Still more use of the phrase 'junk science' showing currency among scientists in a broader interpretation: Merrow, J. (2005, February 23). Unlearning Bad Science. Education Week. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from Public Broadcasting Service Web site: http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/edweek4.html. The article quotes Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, "Our populations have never been more ignorant of science,....There's so much fake science, junk science, out there, and people have to be able to recognize it."
Freese, B. (2005, January 24). Comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration re: Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non‐Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use (FDA Docket No. 2004D‐0369). Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from Friends of the Earth Web site: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04d0369/04D-0369_emc-001344-01.pdf. (p. 23) ‘Regulatory junk science is a form of pseudoscience in which an assay or other scientific procedure conducted for regulatory prposes is deliberately designed to achieve a preconceived, “desired” result that assures regulatory approval or non-action concerning an identified or potential hazard’
Hetzner, A. (2006, October 2). Junk science or truth? ‘Parental alienation syndrome’ increasingly cited in child custody fights. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Web site: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=507158. Douglas Darnall, an Ohio psychologist and a specialist in parental alienation, called claims that parental alienation syndrome is nothing more than “junk science” a “diversion.”
The Polygraph and Lie Detection (Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Trans.). (2003). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from National Research Council Web site: http://newton.nap.edu/booksearch.php?record_id=10420&term=%22junk+science%22&chapter=R1-18. (p. xiii) ‘Yet others claim that the studies underlying the polygraph represent “junk science” that has no scientific basis.’
Tweedale, T. (2005, April). Sex and Ceruloplasmin Modulate the Response to Copper... Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(4), A226. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1278512. ‘The experimental dose chosen for this study was 10 mg/kg/day, and was justified by the authors as being a dose safe for 97.5% of humans. TDIs [tolerable daily intake] are typically derived from industry junk science (unpublishable in independent journals) and contain massive data gaps.’
The 'junk science' article should accomplish more than enshrining the victimhood of some underdog special interest groups. Consider if people reading the 'Junk Science' article are being informed of some criteria to detect/evaluate junk science themselves. Bringing in the ADA 10 red flags was my attempt to do this. Stonecarver Saturday, 4-NOV-2006
This is the list of junk arguments that have been presented above to prevent portrayal of 'junk science' in broader use in the article and prevent merger with like phrases:
Clarification - In the event that this discussion is interpreted as a vote, we need to make it clear that the current tally thus far is 4 people opposed, and 2 in favor of the proposed merger. Stonecarver's postings, in which he has several times preceded his remarks by inserting the word "support" in bold letters, might give the impression that there are more "support" votes than actually exist. Stonecarver is certainly entitled to elaborate upon his position as often as he wishes, but he only votes once. I'm sure that he doesn't intend to create an impression to the contrary, so I have edited passages above to take out the redundant bolded "support" declarations and replace them with something less confusing. -- Sheldon Rampton 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Junk science claims are largely a result of the lack of factual verification by the modern media and the consuming public."
Junk science is caused by improper motives and the media is no less subject to those motives.-- B
I wouldn't consider the Tobacco Institute Research Council or the Cato Institute to be astroturfing per se, since they don't claim to be "grassroots" but rather intellectual/scientific institutions. - Gwalla 02:18, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create a "Sound Science" entry? This is the term used by the industrial lobbies and the Bush government to opposse regulations. It is used as the opposite of junk science.-- Frank.visser 23:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Tobacco Institute Research Council may have a narrowly-defined goal, but the Cato Institute is a think-tank foundation. They probably shouldn't be lumped together.
Junk science is a result of so many groups being crisis driven. The key to recognition of junk science is the ignoring or discrediting of facts that do not fit the theory. Politics and money lead people to create a crisis and then look only for facts to support it. Politicians, Media, Scientists, and Lawyers all have something to gain from hyping a crisis. One group raises a crisis then the others all jump on board and quote each other as proof that something must be done. Politicians and Newspeople spend hours pontificating for votes and ratings while Scientists and Lawyers rake in cash. The conclusions are then reached before the facts are fully known and anyone who dares question the conclusions are branded by those benefiting from the conclusion as quacks. A study which supports junk science alway makes page one, while the inconvienient facts which debunk it end up on page 27, if mentioned at all.
Junk science From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Junk science is a term used to derogate purportedly scientific data, research, analyses or claims which are driven by political, financial or other questionable motives. How does this not qualify?
I propose that the Bunk science article be merged into this one. It's just another term for what's really the same thing, and the Bunk science article is just a stub, so it seems logical to merge it here rather than the other way around. Comments on the proposed merge? Wesley 17:07, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this. There really wasn't much content to merge. -- Howrealisreal 01:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
The content of the page illustrates the term well, but the examples seem to me one sided (left namely). In the spirit of objectivity shouldn't we show the junk science pushed by the other side? For example green organzations (see lomborg.com), the Club of Rome papers published in the '70s, and so on? Or would mentioning these contradict some sort of dogma? -- Spark Voidstar 21:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I have put an entry at the bottom of Failed History about science that has been disproved - a valdid distinction from bad/junk science (any more examples than that given?).
Jackiespeel 15:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems odd that Huber's work isn't even mentioned here, although he popularized the term in the early 1990s. I'll fix things up a bit. -- Christofurio 14:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Removed the following unsourced bit:
If it is to be re-inserted, it will need to be worded better and supported by good references. That does not mean original research and one's own website links that have been previously removed. -- Vsmith 22:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
This has been going on for awhile now, and he's shown no willingness to reform. I think perhaps it's time to take some sort of disciplinary action, such as blocking this user or taking it to arbitration. -- Sheldon Rampton 19:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Read what Standford's Journel wrote in October 1992 to JMG's Editor. And please take disciplinary action and make the geostatistical fraternity happy!. JWM-- Iconoclast 22:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
This goes here. I not sure about this since the srticle doesn't claim it as a synonym and pseudoscience is also "bad". I think maybe it is better sending the redirect to Ben Goldacre; I typed it in looking for the srticle on his column. Opinions? -- A Geek Tragedy 12:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Why is there a link to junkscience.com in this article? It's a blatantly partisan site which isn't on the side of science by any stretch of the imagination. See Steven Milloy. -- BenRG 22:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Added a neutral definition of 'junk science' before the dive into a fairly one-sided presentation. Also, found an earlier source for coining the term. Both of these additions, however, point to a less divisive more constructive use of the term. Stonecarver Thursday, 12-OCT-2006
I made a previous attempt to increase the NPOV on this page by introducing the following issues:
I. How to address the subject scientific claimants that: A. Purposely omit model uncertainties to strengthen claims? B. Purposely ignore contrary findings? See Testing hypotheses suggested by the data:How to do it wrong C. Frame results in a representation that favors the preferred hypothesis (using RR instead of NNT). D. The influence of Publication bias?
II. Justification for broader coverage of the subject of 'junk science' both historically and contextually: A. Richard Feynman referred to the above practices as 'junk' science in his Caltech address in 1974. B. Sokal was able to pass off junk to a purported scientific journal without peer review. C. Cognitive Bias led to junk results in Charles Elkan's revelation of 'Magical Thinking in Data Mining.' D. Brignell's explanation of the Uncertainty Principle is a sound principle of Sampling and the Fourier Transform and points up some uncertainties in scientific claims over large spans of time by sampling over small spans of time. E. The current political connotation of 'junk science' will pass, returning to the more vital use of the term that reminds us 'not to fool ourselves' (as Feynman would say). Stonecarver Thursday, 12-OCT-2006
The term "junk science" is clearly a pejorative rather than an analytical term. Compare it, for example, to the term " pseudoscience." Like "junk science," "pseudoscience" assumes that a meaningful distinction should be made between good or reliable science and bad or unreliable claims which purport to be science. However, "pseudoscience" offers principles such as reproducibility, intersubjective verifiability and Karl Popper's "falsifiability" to distinguish between the two. By contrast, there are no generally agreed-upon methodological standards for distinguishing between "sound" science and "junk" science.
Moreover, the word "junk" in the phrase "junk science" is a clear example of name-calling, a propaganda technique that was identified as such nearly a century ago by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. As a website devoted to the study of propaganda explains, "The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence."
The term "junk" is clearly a negative symbol. Calling something "junk science" is no different than calling it "shit science" or "pinhead science" or using some other negative symbol. Trying to define "junk science" as though it were simply an objective term for describing "bad science" is therefore inaccurate and inappropriate. It would be like trying to give serious, nonpejorative definitions to terms such as "moonbat" or "scumbag." -- Sheldon Rampton 09:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear that the use of 'junk science' is solely connected with some kind of political jingoism. It's broader, perhaps, more socially redeeming use in the current literature is concerned with the quality of scientific claims or their presentation to the lay or legal public. The current references below have a common thread that connects back to the Feynmann speech wherein you will find the word 'junk' used referring to pseudoscience and science poorly done.
Matson, J. V., Daou, S. F., & Soper, J. G. (2004). Effective Expert Witnessing. CRC Press. (p. 31) ‘At its worst, junk science is the willful manipulation of biased data, false or erroneous conclusions, and fraudulent methodology in the attempt to “scientifically” substantiate a point that, in reality, cannot be substantiated. At its best, junk science is science or theory that has not been subjected to the scientific method and therefore lacks defensible support of the scientific community.’
Morrone, M., & Lohner, T. W. (2002). Sound Science, Junk Policy: Environmental Health Science and the Decision-Making Process. Auburn House/Greenwood. (p. 38) ‘Junk science in the courtroom emanates from testimony by expert witnesses hired not for their scientific expertise, but for their willingness, for a price, to say whatever is needed to make the client’s case.’
Many scientific claims in thesis defenses, scientific editorials, court rooms, and the wider media have been _deservedly_ labeled 'junk science.' It is a longstanding scientific practice of good hygiene to do so. Remember cold fusion? The current popular use of the term is full of sound and fury signifying nothing. To omit a broader use from the presentation because it lacks the some transient emo-political charge is 'junk wiki.' Stonecarver Thursday, 13-OCT-2006
Assertions (above) that scientists are voicing legal or political opinions when they are quoted with their credentials is a cognitive bias called the ‘representativeness’ heuristic. Consider the probability conjunction rules: P (S ∩ C) ≤ P (C) and P (S ∩ C) ≤ P (C). The probability that a Scientist is a Corporate sock puppet (scientist ∩ puppet = S ∩ C) is less than either of the probabilities that subject is a scientist (scientist = S) or a sock puppet (corporate = C). The more parsimonious explanation is that a scientist quoted as a scientist is simply expressing a scientific opinion. The burden of proof is upon those who assert the conjunction, and no such proof has been offered so far in this discussion against my citations. I provide even more citations showing more than occasional use of the phrase among scientists, associations of scientists, and science educators addressing objections above:
Sound Science for Endangered Species. (2002, September). In Science and Technology in Congress. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from http://www.aaas.org/spp/cstc/pne/pubs/stc/stc02-09.pdf. “Although most individuals would agree that sound science is preferable to junk science, fewer recognize what makes a scientific study ‘good’ or ‘bad’.”
Hill, C. T. (2001). Fifty Years of Science and Technology Policy in Ten Minutes. AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook, 107. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from American Association for the Advancement of Science Web site: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/ch7.pdf. 'This [integrity of the corpus of scientific and technical knowledge] includes specific issues like the adequacy and functioning of the peer-review system; managing fraud in science; and dealing with pseudo-science, junk science, and, most important, self-delusion in science.'
Goertzel, T. (2002, January/February). Econometric Modeling as Junk Science. The Skeptical Inquirer, 26(1), 19-23. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Rutgers University Web site: http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htm. ‘If you were misled by any of these studies [on criminal deterrence], you may have fallen for a pernicious form of junk science: the use of mathematical models with no demonstrated predictive capability to draw policy conclusions....Regression models that have not been demonstrated to work with fresh data, other than the data used to create them, are junk science.’
Baron, L. A. F. (2001, February). The Influence of "Junk Science" and the Role of Science Education. Imprimis, 30(2). Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Hillsdale College Web site: http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/2001/february/default.htm. Dr. Baron, Chemistry Professor and Department Chair wrote. 'So-called “junk science” bypasses this system of peer review....Presented directly to the public by people variously described as “experts” or “activists,” often with little or no supporting evidence, this “junk science” undermines the ability of elected representatives, jurists, and others — including everyday consumers — to make rational decisions.'
Murray, B. (2006, November 12). The Methods of Science and Journalism. FACSNET, science and technology. Retrieved November 12, 2006, from Foundation for American Communications Web site: http://www.facsnet.org/tools/sci_tech/methods.php3. Quotes Dr. David L. Goodstein, Ph.D., Vice Provost and Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech,'…you could tell the difference between junk science and real science, you could simply say someone didn't follow the [scientific] method.' Stonecarver 12:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a dispute about the neutral emphasis of the Junk science article.20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Dan Agin, the author of the book Junk Science discussed here in several places. I'd like to add a few comments that some people might find helpful.
1) In a "trade" book (as this one was), the title is usually chosen by the publisher. If the author has some clout, he can press to change it. I had no clout and no reason to object, and so I just accepted the title. Irrespective of the title, the book is essentially about pseudoscience, and it's not the first or last book on the subject. I think the Wiki category "Pseudoscience" is more important than "Junk Science".
2) I did not in fact know about the right-wing use of "junk science", or about its use by Steve Molloy, until after the book was published. I was unfortunately hardly focused on conservative media memes and buzz-words. I certainly did not know that the phrase had been essentially coopted by the media as a description of anti-conservative science-based policy. Seeing the title, many people thought the book was pro-conservative, which was unfortunate for sales, and a surprise to various conservative media who invited me to talk about the book and then discovered my politics.
3) A small part of the book caused a controversy in Wiki, the part about the physicist Schoen and the discoveries of his apparent fabrications. The original Schoen page included several paragraphs added, I think in mid-2006, that were lifted out of my book. The book itself was published in November 2006. In early 2006, I offered advance copies of the book by Email to anyone who asked for it via ScienceWeek. The manuscript of the book was turned in to the publisher in August 2005. Some people at Wiki have apparently thought I might have lifted the material on Schoen from Wiki, but I assure you it was the other way around. Apparently one of those people who had an advance copy directly or indirectly wrote the Wiki paragraphs about Schoen.People need to remember that manuscripts are turned in to publishers at least nine months before they are actually published, and that many advance copies are sent out, bound and unbound long before publication. Anyone who writes pages for Wiki should be cautioned that all such advance material is under copyright. The simple fact that a book appears in print after something in the book has appeared in Wiki is never evidence that the material was lifted from Wiki. Icarus530 ( talk) 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
The article should be reviewed and statements redacted according to Wp:blp#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_controversial_material. Stonecarver 04:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
I've cut the following paragraph because of numerous problems:
-- Stephan Schulz 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Peterrhyslewis 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You have not explained why you have deleted my contribution. As a practising scientist, I think you should spell out exactly what problems you have with my write-up.
Peterrhyslewis 11:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
You clearly have not read the current Wiki article on eugenics, and the point I am tryng to make is that "consensus" is in no way an argument for any scientific theory. Perhaps you yourself should attend a University course, because I happen to teach at a Unversity, and we try to instill a sceptical attitude to theories which claim to be supported by a "consensus". If you would like to access junkscience.com, you will see there that anthropogenic global warming proponents are accused by that website of beng "junk science". Wiki users should receive a balanced viewpoint, not a viewpoint biased one way or another. Clearly, you are simply quite unaware of the way science advances.
Peterrhyslewis 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Recently, User:Stonecarver made this update, [1] referring to the work of Judith Kleinfeld. If Kleinfeld's work were a print publication, especially a refereed one, there would be no problem in citing it. However it appears to be a blog posting at the Independent Womens Forum, a political activist web site ( http://www.iwf.org). Linking to blogs is frowned upon by WP:EL. I suggest that this item be removed. EdJohnston 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent Design is actually being cited in this page as an obvious example of junk science. First, there is no need for such a mention here and it looks pretty much like POV pushing. The article is still just as good without this mention.
Also, although I understand that 99% of scientists do not believe in ID and rather believe in evolution, this does not make ID "junk science" per se. The debate is heated in the US and elsewhere to throw ID out of schools and I understand that, but the truth of the matter is that science still does no fully explain life. Science about the origins of life remains at best knowledge, but cannot, by far, be considered truth.
Albert Einstein, a scientist that you may know, said that "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
Please read about epistemology and the philosophy of science before pushing ID as being so obviously junk that it deserves to be mentionned on this page as an example of junk science. Controversial science or pseudoscience? Yes. Junk? Bring me the full explanation of the origins of life then I'll agree. -- Childhood's End 19:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Give an authoritative source showing the use of the phrase 'junk science' referring directly to ID and I would support placing it in the 'controversy' section of the article. We tried earlier to merge 'junk science' with other forms of bad science (see above) and the group did not approve. Therefore, I would say that some people think ID is pseudoscience, or cargo cult science, or some other heresy. But if a court opinion, congressional testimony, or a peer reviewed journal article does not call ID 'junk science' specifically, then it is just your opinion no matter how obvious it seems to you. I seem to recall a court justice using 'junk science' with respect to ID, but I can't recall where I saw it and I would support including it. Stonecarver 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Though I am not a fan of Intelligent design, the inclusion of a pointer to that article as a 'See also' item seems like random mud-slinging. It might be OK to mention intelligent design in this article if it were discussed explicitly in the text. I notice that the phrase 'Junk science' occurs in the Intelligent design article but only with a citation to a popular article. The discussion over there is not backed up by reference to any scientific work, so it's not as though a 'See also' here really adds to the value or credibility of *this* article. EdJohnston 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Statements in the article that violate WP:NOR will be removed until a citation is provided. Although some statements above might seem 'obvious,' this does not justify inclusion in the article without a citation to a source that specifically supports it. See WP:SYNT. Stonecarver 06:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Intelligent design needs to be mentioned in the article - it is the junk science with the highest visibility right now, and one most people have heard about. As it is a clear case of classic junk, it is the perfect illustration of junk science. It is more visible and widespread than AIDS junk science, which is covered in the article. I have three sources here:
but it seems to be that the book Junk Science by Agin should be a source, if not the primary source. Guettarda, do you have a copy of this? Would you be interested in writing the paragraph, or do you want someone else to take a stab at it? KillerChihuahua ?!? 15:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Just checked, the phrase 'junk science' appears nowhere in any of the Kitzmiller vs Dover court docs. The ID link up to now is just WP:SYNT. The sources mentioned above are full of sound and fury, but they aren't authoritative. I would welcome some better sources that justify the ID link remaining on the article page. They just haven't been cited in the discussion so far. Is Agin footnoted? Stonecarver 20:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The assertion that ID is junk science is well supported. While I don't know if there is any peer-reviewed literature which calls it that (is there any peer reviewed literature which calls anything JS?) it is well established that ID is considered junk science, has been called junk science, and also fits the description. I'd say there's enough evidence to discuss it in the article. Including it as a "see also" seems obvious... "See also" points readers toward related subjects. ID is a related subject.
Intelligent Design is actually being cited in this page as an obvious example of junk science. First, there is no need for such a mention here and it looks pretty much like POV pushing. The article is still just as good without this mention.
I agree with this statement and have removed the section, you either need to include all questionable science or none, plus as defined in the article it is not possible to say what is and what isn't junk science, because it is political. -- Theblog 20:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me how any of this:
The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com, was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Phillip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil. [1] [2] [3] Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars.
relates to this history of Junk Science. Its all personal stuff about Steve Milloy, that has no bearing on actual Junk Science or its history.-- Theblog 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Google "Junk Science". Milloy is the main promoter of the term, and exposure of the fact that he has used it to promote the interests of the tobacco lobby obviously has an effect on the credibility with which it is viewed.
JQ
01:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems, to me, questionable to list Milloy's book "Junk Science Judo" in the references section without some serious qualification. For one example -- just one of what I suspect are many questionable claims -- on page 145, referring to DDT, Milloy wrote Rachel Carson "alleged that DDT decimated bird populations and caused cancer in humans. Public fear over DDT was 'validated' in 1972 when the Environmental Protection Agency banned virtually all uses of DDT. But Carson's concerns over DDT have yet to be justified, and the EPA's ban of DDT was based on politics, not science." This looks to me to be closer to a promulgation of junk science, and not an explanation of it. (Carson did not allege DDT causes cancer, though subsequent research suggests it does and it is listed as a "probable" human carcinogen by the American Cancer Society and ATDSR; the U.S. ban actually covered only use on crops -- most other uses were already suspended; the EPA ban was challenged in court for lacking scientific basis, twice, and the federal courts determined in both cases that there is ample evidence of DDT's harms; almost all research since 1962 reinforces harms of DDT, or opens new fields of concern about newly-discovered harms; the entire world joined in with the National Academy of Science's call to abolish DDT for its harmful qualities in a treaty, the Persistent Organic Pollutants Treaty, which surely is not based on politics having no justification in science.)Perhaps someone else should look at the book to see whether my concerns are justified. Edarrell ( talk) 09:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
An IP deleted without comment a reference to a book by Lora May Levett, "Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science". This book is not found on Amazon or Worldcat, and is not found on Lora Levett's own web site, so we can safely assume it doesn't exist. I *did* find an online abstract of a paper of hers with a similar title, at [4], "Improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science.." This, however, is not a book, it is only an abstract. I suggest that the apparently nonexistent book be dropped from the reference list. I don't believe that the abstract is helpful enough to be added as a reference. EdJohnston 00:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There is currently no mention in the article of the intended analogy with "junk food". I had always had the impression that this was the rhetorical point of the term "junk science": that it referred to results that are marketed as science, but are not really "nourishing" (that is, informative) as science should be. -- FOo ( talk) 08:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I would welcome a more extensive rationale for a large deletion by John Quiggin, more than 10% of the article, which has the edit summary 'Trimmed due to WP:WEIGHT'. This is in a sense a 'popular culture' topic since you can't go into a lab and test something to see if it's junk science. But any article changes should still have a detailed rationale. EdJohnston ( talk) 23:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Sound and junk science are two sides of the same coin. I propose retitling this page to "Sound and junk science" and merging sound science into here. Alternatively we could not even change the title. II | ( t - c) 18:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely yes. Redirect and merge sound science into this article. The phrase is something of an artifact used by the tobacco industry to characterize its own conclusions while characterizing as junk science those conclusions which documented a number of adverse health effects associated with smoking. The phrase doesn't merit its own article but probably ought be mentioned here in the context of how politically charged the accusations and terminology can be on differing sides of a policy debate about which advocate's presentation of the research is a dispassionate summary based on the totality of evidence, and on the other hand which party's presentation is asserted by its opponents to be junk science that charrypicks the research to suit a predetermined preferred outcome. As is illustrated by the just-mentioned example of how the words were used by industry advocates, both of these characterizations ("junk science" and in this case "sound science") can be, and sometimes are, applied in opposite directions by both opposing sides in a policy debate when talking to the public in media sound bites. ... Kenosis ( talk) 20:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I am removing the passage which cites Paul Ehrlich as advocating public policies to improve the dissemination of valid environmental scientific knowledge. Given his multi-year personal track record of incorrect environmental and population predictions one could argue that he is a practioner of junk science.
1967 - the battle to feed humanity is over
1968 - in the 1970s and 80s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death
US life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 the US population will decline to 22 million by 1999
1980 - the Ehrlich/Simon wager which Simon won even without the effects of inflation
I will not cite more lest this become tedious. I won't even venture into his unusual population control theories.
Please see the Wikipedia articles on 'The Population Bomb' by Paul Ehrlich and on Paul Ehrlich himself for a more expansive explanation of this.
His comments have an aroma of political hypocrisy in that HIS science is correct (even though he is quite often dramatically wrong ) while his opponents ( who may well be right) are incorrect. While Ehrlich is well known I question whether he should be considered an authority on this topic. Don't authorities on the whole need to be correct in order to be an authority ? Who is he (based on his often erroneous statements) to determine what is or what is not junk science?
Pedynowski remains as these comments are valid no matter how one views junk science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Vsmith, My point is that Paul Ehrlich can rationally be described based upon his public record regarding population growth, natural resource availability and other topics as a practitioner of junk science based on the article as it is written. This comment does not apply to his study of entomology. For him to be credited as an authority he must have some track record of credibility on the topic at hand. Since we are not discussing butterflies or environmental science what actually makes him an authority on junk science? His name alone or his popularity in other fields of study do not automatically confer knowledge and authority on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 12:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC) My personal likes and dislikes do not enter here. I have never met the individual and I do not have a personal opinion of him. My edit is based upon his credibility regarding the topic of discussion. One who opines outside their sphere of influence/field of study is a critic, not an authority. Paul Ehrlich may be an expert on Lepidoptera, but he has a public record over many years of repeated inaccuracy when he ventures outside of that science. I am not passing judgement on his skils and knowledge as a butterfly scientist. I am removing him as an authority on junk science. Perhaps you should have used some good faith and addressed my specific point as to why I de-sourced him as an authority on junk science instead of assuming that the edit was made to reflect what you believed to be my supposed personal preferences. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Dear Vsmith, I accept your apology. Please clarify on what basis other than Paul Ehrlich's own opinion which he et al. state in the referenced scholarly paper you consider him to be an expert specifically on what constitutes junk science. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiczeski ( talk • contribs) 15:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's be careful not to mislead about Ehrlich's science, or anyone else's, in an article on junk science. What are called false predictions by Ehrlich are not. Read the book. He lays out several different scenarios that may or may not happen, depending on what actions people take to prevent them from happening, and how soon. The scenarios he laid out are in some cases exclusive of other scenarios in the same book -- so citing one as a prediction runs into the difficult position that Ehrlich contradicted that prediction within a few pages -- clearly calling them "predictions" is unwarranted. Moreover, all his scenarios were based on humans failing to take certain actions. Much of his concerns were obviated by significant changes in U.S. law -- the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, for two examples -- and significant, unforeseen and fortunate interventions by, among others, the Rockefeller Foundation and its promotion of the work of Norman Borlaug, increasing food supplies. In short, let's not use a branch of junk science to shoot down a notable, useful and accurate citation. Edarrell ( talk) 09:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Below are some references which weren't really being used in the sound science article. We should focus on distinct facts, freely-accessible refs, and good explanation rather than collecting every reference; many of these articles rehash the same facts over and over.
II | ( t - c) 17:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The heading as originally "Controversy surrounding the term "Junk Science". It was shortened to "Controversy surrounding" which obviously doesn't work. Surrounding what? Then just "Controversy", but it's not about controversy surrounding Junk Science (of which there are many) but the term. So I changed it now to "Controversy surrounding the term", which I think is worse that the original but maybe can work as a compromise? -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Merge this article with Pseudoscience and pathological science? HkFnsNGA ( talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here [6]. PPdd ( talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Vote here. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this statement intended to connote that 'skeptics" like Singer & Seits are actually being given equal time in the media? If so, where are there views being given equal time?
Almost every reference to global warming or the ozone hole refers to a scientific consensus, and it's (in my experience) quite rare to see the views of 'contrarians' getting any time at all, let alone equal time. -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
No point in editing this article to include all the "junk science" that has been used over the years to justify the "medical benefits" of circumcision, unless others here participate. see www.salem-news.com/fms/pdf/2011-12_JLM-Boyle-Hill.pdf Debunk Da Junk ( talk) 16:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik ( talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That's extremely odd because the information was known for two decades or so. Any idea why they would change their mind after the horse has already bolted? Viriditas ( talk) 05:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
These are additional current references to show the use of the phrase 'junk science' in the broader sense. Unless you think that doctors and professional organizations are just wrong or irrelevant in their interpretation of the phrase, these are yet more examples of a broader interpretation.
Baughman, F. A., Jr. MD. (2006). The ADHD Fraud: How Psychiatry Makes "Patients" of Normal Children. Trafford Publishing. (p. 9) 'If ADHD was meant as a way merely to identify a set of behaviors with no inference of it being a neurological abnormality, that would be one thing...but the insistence that it exists in the same physical and provable realm as a real disease is a perversion of science, without even enough credibility to rise to the level of pseudoscience or junk science.'
Volume 106, Issue 4, Pages 601-607. (2006, April). Position of the American Dietetic Association: Food and Nutrition Misinformation (Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Retrieved October 25, 2006, from http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg/ada/hs.xsl/advocacy_adar0202_ENU_HTML.htm (p. 605) 'Ten Red Flags of Junk Science: 1. Recommendations that promise a quick fix. 2. Dire warnings of danger from a single product or regimen. 3. Claims that sound too good to be true. 4. Simplistic conclusions drawn from a complex study. 5. Recommendations based on a single study. 6. Dramatic statements that are refuted by reputable scientific organizations. 7. Lists of "good" and "bad" foods. 8. Recommendations made to help sell a product. 9. Recommendations based on studies published without peer review. 10. Recommendations from studies that ignore individual or group differences' Stonecarver Thursday, 26-OCT-2006
Use of the phrase 'junk science' has currency among scientists in a broader interpretation: BAPTISTE, P. J., & CHEN, Y. (2006, October 18). The Fall of the Scientific Wall. The Harvard Crimson. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=515013 'Critics suggest that this system [Internet-based journals, such as, PLoS and arXiv] allows the rabble to promote “junk science” and argue that scientists will have to wade through a hundred worthless papers to find only one Nobel Prize-winning gem.' Stonecarver Monday, 30-OCT-2006
Another use of the phrase 'junk science' showing currency among scientists in a broader interpretation: Harris, T. (June 12, 2006). Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe. Canada Free Press. Retrieved November 2, 2006, from http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm. Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia is quoted in the article as saying, "The man [Al Gore] is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science." Stonecarver Thursday, 2-NOV-2006
Still more use of the phrase 'junk science' showing currency among scientists in a broader interpretation: Merrow, J. (2005, February 23). Unlearning Bad Science. Education Week. Retrieved November 3, 2006, from Public Broadcasting Service Web site: http://www.pbs.org/merrow/news/edweek4.html. The article quotes Leon Lederman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, "Our populations have never been more ignorant of science,....There's so much fake science, junk science, out there, and people have to be able to recognize it."
Freese, B. (2005, January 24). Comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration re: Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non‐Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use (FDA Docket No. 2004D‐0369). Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from Friends of the Earth Web site: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dockets/04d0369/04D-0369_emc-001344-01.pdf. (p. 23) ‘Regulatory junk science is a form of pseudoscience in which an assay or other scientific procedure conducted for regulatory prposes is deliberately designed to achieve a preconceived, “desired” result that assures regulatory approval or non-action concerning an identified or potential hazard’
Hetzner, A. (2006, October 2). Junk science or truth? ‘Parental alienation syndrome’ increasingly cited in child custody fights. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Web site: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=507158. Douglas Darnall, an Ohio psychologist and a specialist in parental alienation, called claims that parental alienation syndrome is nothing more than “junk science” a “diversion.”
The Polygraph and Lie Detection (Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph, Trans.). (2003). Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from National Research Council Web site: http://newton.nap.edu/booksearch.php?record_id=10420&term=%22junk+science%22&chapter=R1-18. (p. xiii) ‘Yet others claim that the studies underlying the polygraph represent “junk science” that has no scientific basis.’
Tweedale, T. (2005, April). Sex and Ceruloplasmin Modulate the Response to Copper... Environmental Health Perspectives, 113(4), A226. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1278512. ‘The experimental dose chosen for this study was 10 mg/kg/day, and was justified by the authors as being a dose safe for 97.5% of humans. TDIs [tolerable daily intake] are typically derived from industry junk science (unpublishable in independent journals) and contain massive data gaps.’
The 'junk science' article should accomplish more than enshrining the victimhood of some underdog special interest groups. Consider if people reading the 'Junk Science' article are being informed of some criteria to detect/evaluate junk science themselves. Bringing in the ADA 10 red flags was my attempt to do this. Stonecarver Saturday, 4-NOV-2006
This is the list of junk arguments that have been presented above to prevent portrayal of 'junk science' in broader use in the article and prevent merger with like phrases:
Clarification - In the event that this discussion is interpreted as a vote, we need to make it clear that the current tally thus far is 4 people opposed, and 2 in favor of the proposed merger. Stonecarver's postings, in which he has several times preceded his remarks by inserting the word "support" in bold letters, might give the impression that there are more "support" votes than actually exist. Stonecarver is certainly entitled to elaborate upon his position as often as he wishes, but he only votes once. I'm sure that he doesn't intend to create an impression to the contrary, so I have edited passages above to take out the redundant bolded "support" declarations and replace them with something less confusing. -- Sheldon Rampton 05:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)