Difference between revisions of "Junk science"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(smw; standard refs) |
(→Related Articles: elaboration) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Note that a claim of "junk science" is itself a "junk argument" unless it is backed up by a reasoned, rational argument against the claimed "junk science". | Note that a claim of "junk science" is itself a "junk argument" unless it is backed up by a reasoned, rational argument against the claimed "junk science". | ||
| − | ==Related | + | ==Related== |
| − | * the [[Chewbacca defense]] is often used in junk scientific arguments. Charts, tables of figures, and other complex sources are referenced as key parts of the argument in order to tire the argument's audience and deter further investigation. | + | * the [[Chewbacca defense]] is often used in junk scientific arguments. Charts, tables of figures, and other complex sources are referenced as key parts of the argument in order to tire the argument's audience and deter further investigation. Pseudoscientific arguments may also include new terminology which is never adequately explained. All of this invites the reader to feel stupid if they don't pretend to understand ([[emperor's new clothes]] syndrome; see the [[courtier's reply]]). |
| + | |||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
===Reference=== | ===Reference=== | ||
Latest revision as of 14:06, 10 August 2017
About
Junk science is any kind of scientific argument where the conclusions are driven more by a predetermined agenda (often of a political or economic nature) than by any genuine interest in uncovering the truth.
Note that a claim of "junk science" is itself a "junk argument" unless it is backed up by a reasoned, rational argument against the claimed "junk science".
Related
- the Chewbacca defense is often used in junk scientific arguments. Charts, tables of figures, and other complex sources are referenced as key parts of the argument in order to tire the argument's audience and deter further investigation. Pseudoscientific arguments may also include new terminology which is never adequately explained. All of this invites the reader to feel stupid if they don't pretend to understand (emperor's new clothes syndrome; see the courtier's reply).
Links
Reference
- Wikipedia
- Conservapedia
"In the last few decades, most junk science promotes the propaganda positions of the Left." RationalWikias of 2017-08-09, redirects to Steve Milloy, who apparently is known for his frequent claims that global warming is "junk science" on Fox News and may be the primary popularizer of the term.
Related
- 2017/08/09 [L..T] Sorry, Google memo man: women were in tech long before you “James Damore's controversial manifesto says women are genetically unsuited to tech roles. Doesn't he know they were the original computer programmers?”
Notes
- See also Consensus science [W], "a phrase used to describe a position on an issue that is primarily supported using existing or purported scientific consensus as an appeal to authority or appeal to the majority. It can also refer to a use of scientific consensus in a logical argument as the primary means to demonstrate, establish, or promote a view based on scientific or statistical data which may or may not be part of some hypothesis or theory." Need articles about this and the invoked concepts and a mention of the fact that consensus (as opposed to taking a vote, or letting some "head scientist" make the decision) is an important part of the scientific process, especially in cases where agreement is not unanimous.
- Should bogus scientific papers generated for the purpose of testing peer review processes also be classified as junk science? Or is another term needed?