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"?
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.
Look at 98% of acupuncture studies and you will have clear examples of junk science.
According to the naysayer - pretty much all of it.
I would classify it as when researchers fabricate or use faulty data to arrive at a conclusion that is favorable to their beliefs.
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.
I always point out that this was a "fake science" or "pseudo science."
Yes, it's just the term that is new to me, I've always called it crackpot.
Any science you don't agree with obviously
or that conflicts with their religion
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.
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!).
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.
'Views' are quite different than scientific findings.
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.
Great suggestion. Will do. Because I get tired of the same discussions over and over and over...
Sorry about that hope this improves your SOH experience
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.
Fabrication of data. Like how stats on man made global warming was made
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.
Exactly! Very nice comment. I agree all the way.
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)
Any science that they disagree with.
To be fair there is pseudoscience on both sides, but it tends to be rather more common with conservatives.
Science that's at odds with the bible.
Fabricating data like NASA was caught doing....
Now now now "Faux news" delivered those articles to those journalist. That really doesn't count.
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.
the study of heroin?
Science that is junk.
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.