Show of HandsShow of Hands

trepidhickory November 12th, 2014 6:41pm

Lately I've heard conservatives constantly use the phrase "junk science" when talking about any scientific finding they disagree with. Can anyone explain what exactly constitutes "Junk Science"?

7 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

Penguinlay United States
11/14/14 7:29 pm

Junk Science is any discoveries that the people (who use that term) don't know how to appreciate it, apply in an appropriate situation and look at with positive attitudes.

Reply
saulecker Durham, NC
11/13/14 5:19 am

Look at 98% of acupuncture studies and you will have clear examples of junk science.

FacePalm That Trick Never Works
11/13/14 3:46 am

According to the naysayer - pretty much all of it.

Reply
TigerShark47 Missouri
11/12/14 10:23 pm

I would classify it as when researchers fabricate or use faulty data to arrive at a conclusion that is favorable to their beliefs.

Reply
GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
11/12/14 4:33 pm

There is such a thing as junk science, for example, eugenics as promoted by Nazis to build a "master race." When I teach kids at our Holocaust education program, I show them the various "scientific" tools used to sort Aryans vs. non-Aryans.

Reply
GrandmaALiCE For a better 2021
11/12/14 4:34 pm

I always point out that this was a "fake science" or "pseudo science."

Praetorianus Fair enough.
11/12/14 6:47 pm

Yes, it's just the term that is new to me, I've always called it crackpot.

jvberg Winter has Come
11/12/14 3:16 pm

Any science you don't agree with obviously

Reply
koalapanda The Universe
11/13/14 2:53 am

or that conflicts with their religion

Arananthi Literal Ninja
11/12/14 3:06 pm

Junk science is any science that has: A) been paid for by someone you don't like, B) uses methods that aren't as strict as possible and arrived at a result you don't like, C) is a soft science and you don't like the result, or D) is pseudoscience.

Reply
eLucidate writing
11/12/14 1:21 pm

I think the source of 'junk science' is poor media reporting. Typically, scientific findings are small and specific (x explains 20% variance in y under g, h, and k conditions), but reported as (x causes y all the time!! freakout!).

Reply
2katz I live in Nebraska
11/12/14 1:11 pm

That's easy. It's pretty much the same as how you sarcastically dismiss any conservative disagreement with YOUR views. Like this and many of your polls.

Reply
jeffrey306 steel town
11/12/14 2:41 pm

'Views' are quite different than scientific findings.

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
11/12/14 3:28 pm

Oh so conservatives disagree with the peer reviewed sientifi. findings based on their opinions and then ignore them?

And if you don't like my polls feel free to unfollow me at any time.

2katz I live in Nebraska
11/12/14 6:58 pm

Great suggestion. Will do. Because I get tired of the same discussions over and over and over...

trepidhickory Ayy Lmao
11/12/14 6:59 pm

Sorry about that hope this improves your SOH experience

ScottyDoesNo Stand back and stand by
11/12/14 1:04 pm

Junk science is liberal conjecture based not on the scientific method but so-called "consensus". Science isn't based on people getting together and agreeing on something, it's based on the scientific method which global warming fails miserably.

Reply
FarmerManE djent
11/12/14 1:03 pm

Fabrication of data. Like how stats on man made global warming was made

DankZane Visus Per Mentem
11/12/14 12:19 pm

Flawed experiment design, ignoring certain variables, misrepresenting data, bias. There are certainly others but these are the ones I can name off the top of my head.

Reply
EricG Small Town USA
11/12/14 12:28 pm

Exactly! Very nice comment. I agree all the way.

sojourner present
11/12/14 12:32 pm

I could agree, I'd want to add that wasn't peer reviewed or is not going to have peer review (as in just published and is going thru the process is not junk science just because it hasn't been peer reviewed yet)

fredd TrumpLand
11/12/14 11:59 am

Any science that they disagree with.

fredd TrumpLand
11/12/14 12:01 pm

To be fair there is pseudoscience on both sides, but it tends to be rather more common with conservatives.

Cole12 ...
11/12/14 11:56 am

Science that's at odds with the bible.

Reply
political Georgia
11/12/14 12:19 pm

Now now now "Faux news" delivered those articles to those journalist. That really doesn't count.

koalapanda The Universe
11/13/14 2:55 am

exactly ^ faux news is not nearly news, its the opinions of the producers. same withe The O'Reilly Factor. ever notice how defensive when people argue his opinions with actual facts? pretty hilarious actually.

firefly5 the verse
11/12/14 11:47 am

the study of heroin?

Reply
political Georgia
11/12/14 11:47 am

Science that is junk.

Reply
Dazey Beagles Rule
11/12/14 11:45 am

I've heard the same from both sides of the aisle. People don't look at the data or the method, they look at the who.

Reply