Talk:Junk science/Archives/2013

I find this statement in the article questionable

"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

The first statement is actually right on the mark - the second one, when we get into motives and whether they're proper, has no place here. But science is based on fact checking, predicting and testing these predictions, and creating a model that gets more and more accurate, based on verifiable observation. The media, however, has no truth-assurance mechanism. FireWeed 19:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

---

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)

I second that. I removed the 'astroturfing' association because it is clearly unjustified, and largely irrelevant to the article.--FirstPrinciples 20:38, Oct 11, 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)

Huber used the term "solid science" for such a contrast. --Christofurio 23:33, 21 August 2006 (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.

Katherine van Wormer

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?

• Katherine van Wormer, Addiction, Brain Damage and the President. Nobs 17:17, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I would say because she is a social work professor, not a scientist, and was writing for a newspaper, not a scientific journal, so "purportedly scientific" doesn't apply. A Geek Tragedy 09:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Many scientific breakthroughs across history have been made by lay people. It's purporting to be scientific, not purporting to be a scientist that defines a theory as junk science. The title of the article certainly sounds like a scientific paper, although I haven't read it, and can't comment further. FireWeed 19:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from bunk science

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)

Merge: bunk science and junk science are synonymous, the only difference is one letter. --Howrealisreal 18:25, 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)

Question

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)

Be bold and go for it. Contributions to help achieve NPOV are always welcome (just remember to cite sources when needed). --Howrealisreal 15:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, there is quite a large amount of "leftist" junk science that isn't yet covered. Jefffire 15:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Instead of using weasel words, could you provide us with some examples? Be bold, and add them to the article itself. But please don't just say "the other side does it too" and leave it vaguelly at that. You're hurting your own. FireWeed 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Failed science

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)

Peter W. Huber

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)

I agree that Huber should be mentioned in the article, since he did popularize the term. However, I took out the phrase "subsequent to its earlier use by Huber" from the sentence which previously read, "John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch believe that subsequent to its earlier use by Huber the term 'junk science' has come to be used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate profit maximization" (emphasis added). This phrase implies that we believe that deriding scientific findings that stand in the way of corporate profits is something that happened after Huber, when in fact we believe that Huber himself was part of this. Here's the passage where we discuss Huber in our book, Trust Us, We're Experts:

Authored by engineer and attorney Peter Huber, Galileo’s Revenge argued that money-grubbing lawyers are using spurious science to collect huge, undeserved injury settlements from innocent companies. The title of Huber’s book reflects his contention that corporations today have become victims of Galileo’s mythic status as a symbol of scientific integrity. Galileo may have been right, Huber said, when he stood alone against the repressive force of established convention, but scientists today who propose similarly heretical theories are mostly opportunists whose opinions merely contaminate the legal system by enabling frivolous lawsuits to proceed. “Maverick scientists shunned by their reputable colleagues have been embraced by lawyers," Huber wrote. "Almost any self-styled scientist, no matter how strange or iconoclastic his views, will be welcome to testify in court. … Junk science is impelled through our courts by a mix of opportunity and incentive. ‘Let-it-all-in’ legal theory creates the opportunity. The incentive is money.”

Junk scientists, Huber said, can be recognized because they “do not use regular channels of communication, such as journals, for reporting scientific information, but rely instead on the mass media and word of mouth.” Yet Huber’s own book and his opinions about junk science reached the public through a massive publicity blitz, beginning with a 1986 forum on “the liability crisis” sponsored by the Manhattan Institute for Public Policy Research, where Huber holds the title of senior fellow. “Reporters from all the national papers and magazines were there and the event generated numerous news articles,” stated the institute’s internal report on the campaign. The forum then became the basis for a 24-page Manhattan Report that “was mailed to 25,000 carefully selected people in government, academia, business, media and the law. … We held two workshops, one in Washington, DC in June and one in New York in August. The first included thirty corporate government affairs officers while the second, a full-day seminar, brought together fifteen academic scholars from throughout the country. … With assistance from a number of our friends, we compiled a mailing list of over 400 journalists who have written about the liability crisis. … Our project director, Walter Olson, published numerous ‘op eds’ on the subject, including a major piece in the Wall Street Journal.”

Huber’s own scholarship, moreover, is open to the same charges of “data dredging, wishful thinking, truculent dogmatism, and, now and again, outright fraud” that he attributes to junk science. In the American University Law Review, Kenneth Chesebro has pointed to numerous factual distortions in the legal case studies that Huber cites. Huber is also the source for a widely-cited statistic which claims that liability lawsuits cost the American economy $300 billion per year. When University of Wisconsin law professor Marc Galanter examined the basis for that claim, however, he discovered that its sole basis in fact was a “single sentence spoken by corporate executive Robert Malott in a 1986 roundtable discussion of corporate liability.” Malott had estimated that liability lawsuits cost corporations $80 billion per year—a number that Galanter notes is “far higher than the estimates in careful and systematic studies of these costs. Huber then multiplied Malott’s surmise by 3.5, rounded it up to $300 billion, and called that the ‘indirect cost’ of the tort system.”

A court of law is not a laboratory, and good science does not prevail there any more often than justice itself does. Bad verdicts, like bad science, have been with us for a long time. For Huber, however, only certain offenses seemed to deserve the label “junk science.” Although he made a few offhand references to smoking as “our most routine form of suicide,” his anecdotal examples of junk science in action never mentioned the tobacco industry’s hired use of scientific guns to defend itself in court. “Due in large part to the scientific testimony,” boasted an R.J. Reynolds executive in a 1981 speech, “no plaintiff has ever collected a penny from any tobacco company in lawsuits claiming that smoking causes lung cancer or cardiovascular illness—even though 117 such cases have been brought since 1954.” This boast was still valid when Galileo’s Revenge hit bookstore shelves, yet Huber never used the term “junk science” in reference to tobacco science—deference which may possibly reflect the fact that Huber’s employer, the Manhattan Institute, is a conservative think-tank that is significantly supported by tobacco money, along with other industries that have their own vested interests in limiting lawsuit-related corporate liability.

I would personally recommend a couple of other changes to this article in its current form. First, I think some of Huber's critics such as Chesebro or Galanter should be mentioned, at least in the references. Second, I think saying that his book was a "surprising" success is a bit odd and borders on POV. Surprising to whom? I don't think its success is particularly surprising, given the Manhattan Institute's massive publicity campaign to promote Huber's arguments, combined with a similarly massive industry campaign to promote "tort reform." (And even so, Galileo's Revenge was never a runaway bestseller, although I'm sure it sold well.) Rather than make these changes myself, however, I'll leave it to others to decide whether they want to revise these passages. (Since John and I are actually quoted in the article, I think I should use a light hand in editing it myself.) --Sheldon Rampton 15:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I applaud your restraint. I'm not sure why I 'get' the above passage as a criticism of what Huber wrote, though. To say that a better book would have criticized the tobacco companies doesn't actually amount to criticism of anything he did put in his. You can always say, "Oh, Author Smith should have written about X, Y, and Z." That's not a critique of the claims Q, R, and S which Smith did make. Nor does calling Huber's examples of junk science "anecdotes" rehabilitate the 'science' that he critiqued there, over AIDS and the hypothetical casual 'vectors' or transmission, for example. --Christofurio 05:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Geostats

Removed the following unsourced bit:

For example, geostatistical peer review is a blatantly biased shamelessly self-serving sham but it does protect junk science.

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 is part of Jan Merks' personal crusade against geostatistics. Check out his talk page. Lunch 19:56, 25 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)

Bad Science redirect

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)

junkscience.com link

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)

The link is there bas an example of Junk-Science. If someone wants to see junk-science, go to junkscience.com. Although junkscience.com has lots of junk-science, its gems making up about 1/3 of the site individually or 2/3s of the site together are these

• Smokingis health-neutral.
• Carbon-dioxide does not trap heat.

According to junkscience.com, we can smoke all we want and dump whatever we want into the atmosphere without ill-effects. Junkscience.com is nothing but pure junkscience. it is a perfect example of junk-science. Junkscience.com is the most appropriately named site on the internet because it is pure junk-science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.108.158 (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Definition

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

Thanks - those are definite improvements. Unfortunately, the "constructive" uses seem a little dated, while the term, alas, seems to be used primarily for divisive purposes these days. MastCell 23:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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

All of these examples are problematic

A Feynmann refers to "Cargo cult science" not "junk science" and is talking mainly about pseudoscience like ESP [http://www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html}

B The description of Sokal is incorrect - the journal in question was Social Text, and the material was deliberate nonsense, not spurious science

C Can't find a Google hit for Elkan using the term "junk science". As an aside, the fight over Data mining has been lost - we now have to call it Data dredging

D John Brignell uses the term in the same way as Milloy, to attack scientific findings about environmental and health risks with which he disagrees politically

Unless we can find regular use of the term before Huber, I think the characterisation as a political pejorative is the only correct definitionJQ 05:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reading the history it might be worth putting back the reference to the Union of Concerned Scientists as an example of the term (and the opposition to "sound science") being used on the pro-environmental side of US debate. Still, I'd regard this as an attempt to appropriate a pejorative term coined by the other side of a debate rather than as a neutral use of the term to criticise bad scientific practice in general. JQ 07:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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

These examples seem mostly to be concerned with the misuse of science in legal proceedings, as was Huber's book that popularised the term. Then there's the Milloy/Brignell usage, and the UCS counterattack in relation to environmental/health science. Maybe we could rewrite the intro to focus on the two main uses of the term.JQ 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New section on use by scientists

I've added a new section incorporating several of the references and uses noted by Stonecarver . I hope this helps resolve some of the problems.JQ 07:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I'm not sure what your point is here. The uses above are consistent with what is in the article. JQ 12:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Junk science article neutrality

This is a dispute about the neutral emphasis of the Junk science article.20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• For several decades, the phrase 'junk science' has been used in a legal and scientific manner. Usage of the phrase has evolved since it was first coined in the 1974, therefore, it is reasonable to include the rhetorical and pejorative uses found today. Of the uses of the phrase, the pejorative is the least important (though its tone dominates when only the tip of the article is shown elsewhere on the web). The pejorative use is not as important because it is transiently sensationalistic and provides readers with no definition or criteria to identify or evaluate 'junk science' for themselves (consider the ADA checklist cited above or Michael Schermer's Baloney Detection guidelines in November 2001 Scientific American). A monolithic methodology for defining 'junk science' doesn't exist any more than it does for the 'scientific method,' which is okay as long as the main features can be recognized. Legal and scientific uses of the phrase are also more alike in kind (ranking the expertise of an expert before a jury, or challenging the rigor of scientific claim before a committee). Scientific use of the phrase is no less scientific because it occurs in a legal venue. The scientific use is presently deemphasized in the article by lumping it under legal use, however, 'junk science' should be presented emphasizing a neutral definition and criteria to evaluate it.Stonecarver22:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of the term "junk science" in relation to litigation is the first to be discussed in the article and gets covered in detail. The currently-dominant pejorative use, popularised by Steven Milloy, gets discussed next. Most of the top 100 Google hits for "junk science" refer to this use, and nearly all the rest to alleged misuse of science in litigation. Given this pattern of usage, it's not surprising that these two uses get most attention.

Scientists occasionally use the phrase "junk science" , either in one of these contexts or in passing references like some of those listed above, and this is covered in the article. As stated in the article, there do not appear to be any generally agreed scientific criteria for "junk science" - the term is used to refer to scientific or allegedly scientific claims that the user does not like. JQ 07:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Is this a case of violent agreement? :) What exactly is the dispute about? The article seems fine to me. -Regebro 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think pejorative should be removed from the first 10 words of the article (the tip) and placed in a less emphasized position. Instead, I think a neutral science and legal definition should take precedence and the scientific use section should be re-written to address the quality of science meaning. I think 'junk science,' pseudoscience, and other like terms overlap in meaning. Another editor does not agree, and either makes claims of obviousness without proof or cites a Google search that is not evidence about use by scientists whatever they might mean by 'junk science' when they use the phrase in a seminar or a courtroom. Google does not perform a phrase occurance analysis of these venues, and not in professional journals either where we might learn what scientists mean when they use the phrase. Consider two books actually written on just the subject of junk science: Agin's book has word counts of 'pejorative,' 'legal,' and 'scientific' 0, 7, and 99 times, respectively; Huber's book has those respective terms occurring at 1, 97, and 112 times. By the opposing editor's own method, 'junk science' is more frequently associated with the idea of science, than law or pejorative. On the other hand, the verifiable citations I brought to the discussion (see my edits on this discussion page above) showing the quality of science meaning have been summarily dismissed. Further, initial contributions by me were simply removed by the opposing editor without prior discussion or an attempt to build on them. Instead, without reaching agreement on the issues, the opposing editor just wrote the science section to maintain the bias in the article. Pro-pejorative anti-merge editors are allowed to make edits to the article without removal. My contributions have been limited to contributions by proxy through the discussion page by the opposing editor. This is my view of the dispute.Stonecarver14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

So, to sum up: Stonecarver feels very put upon because other people here disagree with his point of view. Also, he thinks that the objectivity and neutrality of the term "junk science" can be demonstrated by a spurious word count test. I can play that game too. Here's another, equally ridiculous word count test: The term "junk" appears 201 times in Agin's book, so the concept of "junk science" must be twice as junky as it is scientific. Here's another: The word "science" occurs 100% of the time in the phrase "creation science." Using Stonecarver's absurd logic, therefore, creation science would have to be considered legitimate by the scientific community. This sort of reasoning is just laughable.

Stonecarver also claims that his "verifiable citations...have been summarily dismissed." Not true. To "summarily dismiss" something is to dismiss it without taking the time to respond. Time and time again, people have taken the time to respond to Stonecarver's statements and citations, usually by pointing out that the citations he lists are consistent with the article in its present form. On a few cases, people have incorporated some of those citations into the article itself. Time and time again, Stonecarver has ignored these responses and has chosen instead to do another Google search so he can find a few more "citations" to dump into the talk page without bothering to address the substance of other people's responses. At best, he has responded by offering a sarcastic and inaccurate (and, as usual, verbose) list of mischaracterizations of the statements made by people who disagree with him. --Sheldon Rampton 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

1.Actually, I am enjoying the challenge of answering the opposition’s criticisms (where they are substantive). 2.SR seems to have missed that the point of my example is the Google search is spurious. 3.I want to thank SR for reminding me about the pejorative use of ‘junk science’ against creation science and intelligent design. It seems to be missing from the article. 4.‘Summarily’ means ‘in general’ also, not just ‘quickly’ and is how I meant it. I appreciate the responses people have made even if they don’t agree with me, if they are substantive. 5.SR is correct that I did not adequately acknowledge that some of my ideas made it in the article. So I concede this point and thank you. 6.Adding new citations was my response to the opposition's response not 'ignoring' them. When the opposition rejected my evidence, I added citations to strengthen my evidence. Criticizing me for being verbose and not addressing responses at the same time is a double-bind. 7.So the claim is that the opposition has addressed the substance of my statements while I have not addressed theirs. Show me where in the discussion above. 8.I will admit to ‘sarcastic,’ but not to ‘inaccurate’ until the substance of my statements is actually addressed. If you show me how they are inaccurate, instead of just claiming it, I will admit it. But you haven’t so far.Stonecarver 08:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A minor point on the word count above. Huber is using the term "junk science" as a pejorative, and it's rare for people using a term in this way to note the fact. JQ 02:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you please provide some proof that Huber means it this way? Which people use it rarely? How did you sample this? Please substantiate your claims. I'm open to the idea of you being right. I'll change my mind and agree with you. Just show me, because I haven't seen it in the article or the discussion yet. And if you can show this, it should be in the article. It has been an important issue for both sides.Stonecarver 06:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems kind of obvious that Huber is using the term as a pejorative, but it might be more useful to look at Steven Milloy, who clearly does so. I searched for instances of Milloy noting that "junk science" is a pejorative term (using various Google searches) and found zero (as opposed to others noting that he uses it this way). This is consistent with my general point - people who use a term pejoratively don't describe it that way.

I have a proposal for ending the dispute. Please bear with this explanation. SR thought I meant 'quickly' when I said 'summarily.' I went to a dictionary and looked it up to see if I had a wrong definition. I found 'generally' as the first definition and 'quickly' as the second. Then JQ reiterated that 'junk science' is pejorative. What I meant when I asked JQ for proof was proof of the relative frequency of the pejorative use of the phrase 'junk science.' What I realized is that we are amateur lexicographers here. Order of definition may not be based on relative frequency. It seems to be a combination of importance, chronology, and frequency. My proposal is this. Let us work together to build a simple list of lexicographic priorities of the use of 'junk science.' The order of the list determines the presentation in the article. I agree to address the substance of your responses to any statements I make about the list. I will limit my statements to issues of completeness and avoid obstructionism and strive to end comments after few rounds. I agree to abide by the outcome of the list. Upon acceptance of this proposal by the loyal opposition, I rescind my objection to pejorative use. Do you agree? Here is a starting point:

The present definition in the opening paragraph and the organization of the article seem to have descriptive prioritization:

1. Meaning in common usage.
2. Actual usage within speakers of the language.
3. Changing usage of the phrase.
4. Version regarded as "correct" regardless of drift in accepted meaning. Use in contexts where vagueness is unacceptable to prevent disputes that arise from the involved parties using different definitions of the phrase in question.

I would like the opening paragraph and article to be prescriptive prioritization as:

1. Version regarded as "correct" regardless of drift in accepted meaning. Use in contexts where vagueness is unacceptable to prevent disputes that arise from the involved parties using different definitions of the phrase in question.
2. Actual usage within speakers of the language.
3. Changing usage of the phrase.
4. Meaning in common usage.Stonecarver 01:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I understand what you are getting at. As the article states, there is no generally accepted "correct" meaning for the phrase "junk science". Those who have proposed definitions, such as Steven Milloy clearly do not use the term in a manner that is consistent with the stated definition, but used it to mean "science with results I don't like". Broadly speaking, if I were to use the term I would mean by it "anything written by Milloy or similar corporate shills", which just goes to illustrate the problem. More generally, the standard lexicographic view is that terms are defined by usage within a given community, not by a prescriptive definition. This can be problematic if the term has one meaning within a technical scientific community and another in the general community, but fortunately this problem does not arise in the present case. In summary, I agree with your characterization, But I think the structure of the article as it stands is correct.JQ 05:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the lexical prioritization have been listed and one version agreed to, I lower my objection to the pejorative prioritization of the article. I will remove the RFC after some days if there is no further comment.Stonecarver 22:03, 30 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)

Remove unsourced or poorly sourced material

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)

Cut (and paste) paragraph

I've cut the following paragraph because of numerous problems:

The term has also been widely used against the proponents of anthropogenic global warming. Their criticism is based on the idea that science develops not by consensus, but by critical experiments. Statistical theories are especially prone to bias, and must be subjected to critical scrutiny. Anthropogenic global warming theories are based on computer models which are entirely dependent on the physical basis of the equations used for their development, as well as the data entered into those models. Such models ignore inconvenient facts of nature, such as the well-known fact that water vapour is much more important than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, both as a gas and as an aerosol in the form of clouds. The history of science exhibits many examples of theories which apparently achieve scientific consensus, but which are then overturned by critical experiments. The classic example is the Michelson-Morley experiment which challeneged the exsting consensus that Newtonian physics could explain all phenomena. Eugenics was accepted by the scentific consensus of the late Victorian period, and was developed with horrific results by Adolf Hitler. The theory is now entirely discredited.

• Climate models do not, of course, ignore water vapour. They are weaker on cloud formation than elsewhere, but that is a very different statement - not least because clouds are not composed of water vapour, but water droplets.
• The Michelson-Moreley experiment was not a "critical" experiment (in the sense implied), but set up to actually measure the "aether flow". The suprising thing was that it failed to do so.
• Eugenics is not a scientific theory, but a political program.
• None of the statements is sourced or attributed.

--Stephan Schulz 09:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Further Explanations needed

• Please explain how water vapour or aerosol are treated in current computer models.
• Please explain why the Michelson-Morley Experment was not critical if it disproved the idea of the aether.
• You have failed to appreciate the signficance of eugenics. It was a perfectly respectable scientific theory propounded by Galton in the Victorian period, and then adopted by the nazis.
• The staements are cross-referenced to Wiki articles!

Peterrhyslewis 12:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you are not to familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. We require reliable sources for including stuff in an article. You give none. "The term has also been widely used against the proponents of anthropogenic global warming. Their criticism is based on the idea that science develops not by consensus, but by critical experiments " is not only grammatically wrong (because "their" references "proponents"), it also fails WP:WEASEL. Who is "them"?

• Water vapour is treated in a variety of ways in current models. Most model the heat flow from evaporation and condensation, more or less all try to model the absolute humidity and the resulting greenhouse effect, and many model cloud formation to determine the influence on albedo. This last point is known to be imperfectly understood and modelled, but that is a far cry from being ignored. If you need more information, I suggest you find a university and get an education as a climatologist.
• Michelson and Morely did not set out to find problems with the aether theory, i.e. they did not work as critics of the theory, but within it. Even after their experiment failed, they gave not up on the aether theory, but refined the aparatus and found any number explanations (e.g. the walls of the lab made the aether move with it). I agree that the experiment was important (though not really critical) in the development of special relativity.
• From the cross-linked article: "Eugenics is a social philosophy"..."The term eugenics is often used to refer to movements and social policies".
• Your cross-referencing is nice, but it does not support your case. Neither Eugenics nor Adolf Hitler nor Michelson-Morley make a connection to global warming. Indeed, the link "global warming has consensus, so had eugenics, which made Hitler murder a lot of people so global warming is false" is such a bad argument that I'm surprised somebody seriously offers it. And thanks to the lack of references, we do not know if somebody actually made it.

Finally, this whole paragraph misses the point. This is an article about the term junk science, not about global warming. If you can find a reference that someone claims global warming is junk science, put a properly attributed paragraph in. But this version is inacceptable. Some IP number (was that you?) put it back in, but I'm taking it out again. --17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain Deletion

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)

Well, actually I have. See above for more. --Stephan Schulz 17:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Response to the problem with Consensus

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)

I'm suitably impressed. But whatever is on junkscience (apart from Junk Science): If you want anything on Wikipedia, reference it. Wikipedia is not the place for original research. And the consensus debate is irrelevant to this article. BTW, the discussion becomes more coherent if you do not introduce a new subsection for each reply. Wikipedia custom is to indent replies (use an appropriate number of colons to indent a paragraph). --Stephan Schulz 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Judith Kleinfeld document is not a scientific paper

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)

I didn't realize that. After some discussion, I am willing to withdraw this citation. Are you willing to apply this standard to the entire article? What belongs in the 'Controversy surrounding use of the phrase "junk science"' section then? When would it be appropriate to cite a legal transcript or a newspaper article?Stonecarver 00:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing the external links is reasonable. I see that www.defendingscience.org is a blog. Some of the other entries are journal articles. Can you name any you would like to remove? The Defending Science site does refer to other items that are in reliable sources, so one might extract some of those. I think WP:RS is a good criterion. I've no objection to legal transcripts or newspaper articles. EdJohnston 01:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of the 'external links' are focused on Steve Milloy and discrediting him and other sources with corporate associations. If these are links to substantive material on the subject of the article 'junk science,' concise properly cited quotes or statements should be added to the 'controversy' section above. If they are only attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger, they should just be removed. Also, the article is not supposed to be a link page.Stonecarver 16:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The external links section would repay more study. I only looked at the first two. Conceivably there is value in keeping the link to defendingscience.org, but someone would need to look it over better. Perhaps some of its arguments might be pulled into the article and commented on specifically. As a quick look, it is mostly activism. (Generally it is fair to follow the rule that external links should be cited in the article). The second link, the one to Scientific American, appears to be an editorial but I don't see it being marked as such. Due to lack of time I can't follow up yet. EdJohnston 17:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

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)

Wheter evolution is true or not (disclosure: I'm a Steve), ID is either not science (because it fails falsifiability), or, in as far as it becomes concrete, indeed junk science. It uses paraphernalia of science, but not the scientific method. It redefines standard terms, e.g. from information theory, into something very different and usually incomprehensible, but still tries to apply old results to it when it likes the result. And this is not just my opinion, but has been stated by a number of reliable sources, from conservative Judge John E. Jones III to Richard Dawkins to the AAAS [2] and the President of the United States National Academy of Sciences[3]. --Stephan Schulz 20:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design is a textbook example that follows the definition of Junk Science to the letter. Einstein quotes or not, ID does pretend to be science ( and demands to be taught in biology class ), but does not follow the scientific method. FireWeed 20:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Gotta love that one (Enstein quotes or not)...

I dont think that ID should be thought in schools just like evolution. It is also true that ID does not follow the scientific method. But this does not call for junk science per se.

As for Mr. FireWeed up here, please show us i- where you saw that the US Supreme Court called ID "junk science", and ii- where it is explained that appointed judges hold the truth about what is science and what is not.

Anyway. The fact of the matter is, this mention is absolutely not required on this page and is POV pushing. --Childhood's End 20:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the case has been made pretty well. Dan Agin (Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us, 2006. ISBN 0-312-35241-7), devotes 16 chapters of his book to specific examples of junk science. More than half of chapter 14 ("Creationism: The World as an Egg") is devoted to intelligent design. Specifically, in a section entitled "Why Intelligent Design Fails" he says To invoke supernatural entities, "intelligent designers", or whatever becayuse we have not yet elucidated the details of a complex evolutionary process or have not yet understood the details of a complex system is blatant junk science (p. 209). Noted evolutionary biologist Allen Orr (Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't.) Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design's arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science. Guettarda 20:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So... it is to Dan Agin that the grand role of judging who holds truth and who does not has been devoted? --Childhood's End 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly not; if you don't agree with Dan Agin, write your own book, submit it for peer review, and find someone to publish it. FireWeed 21:03, 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)

No matter what I or you believe with regard to "is ID junk science?", the point remains that this mention is totally unnecessary in this article. It is only POV pushing. Keeping it out does not suggest that ID is science and is a perfectly acceptable solution. --Childhood's End 21:27, 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)

Please see Wedge strategy - the Discovery Institute's method of undermining science and misrepresenting more than a century of research. FireWeed 22:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

ID is not only about Wedge strategy, as you try to put it. And whatever you or I think about ID is beside the point. How is this mention necessary where it is right now if not for POV pushing? Please show that this mention has a useful purpose on the article and that the article's neutrality is not compromised by removing such a mention. --Childhood's End 22:49, 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:

• Devolution, Why intelligent design isn’t. New Yorker (listed earlier by Guettarda)
• Intelligent Design, Unintelligent Me, Washington Post
• Intelligent Design is Junk Science, but Don’t Tell That to the People Selling It, or Your President, orginally published Published August 7th, 2005 in Public Relations, Marketing, Advertising, Viral Marketing and Media.

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)

I think you're confusing junk science with pseudoscience. The term "junk science" is used by a partisan to make the claim that someone else is misusing science for their purposes. Wikipedia should therefore not say that something "is junk science", but that a certain side in a dispute "calls it junk science".

On the other hand, ID is certainly "pseudoscience", if by that term we mean that it's regarded by mainstream science as false or unscientific.

The term "junk science" is like the term "religious cult". As Merriam-Webster points out, "cult" means "a religion regarded as spurious". Note that they are careful not to say "a false religion". --Uncle Ed 15:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Not my opinion, and I'm not confused. We now have four excellent sources using the term "junk science" to describe ID; including a book, the Washington Post, New Yorker magazine, and a marketing magazine; and the motivation behind ID has been established as religious. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is your opinion, and you may be confusing "excellent sources" with "sources that support my POV". It's not like if it is impossible to find sources that say ID is science and present them here as "excellent sources". But this would remain POV. I agree with Uncle Ed on the whole. --Childhood's End 18:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Washington Post and New Yorker are not credible sources, according to you? I caution you against asserting I have a POV here, that is spurious and further, it is immaterial. They call Intelligent design "junk science". KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so under what criteria can we all agree that The Washington Post and New Yorker, or any other source that you may bring forward, hold the truth about whether ID is junk science or not, over other sources that say otherwise? You chose to believe at 100% some sources over others, but that remains your POV, want it or not. Besides, I am not trying to convince anyone that ID is science. I am only modest enough to admit that presenting ID as junk science in an encyclopedia comes to taking sides into a heated debate. --Childhood's End 14:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They are reliable sources of "viewpoints". If The New Yorker says that some researcher believes power lines cause leukemia, then we can be sure that the researcher really believes this. But that's not the same as a peer-reviewed journal article exploring the relationship between power lines and leukemia. --Uncle Ed 14:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not like if it is impossible to find sources that say ID is science and present them here as "excellent sources" - really? While there is overwhelming evidence that shows that ID isn't scientific, I am not aware of any good sources which say that it is. Please do provide some. Furthermore, if Agin is such a worthless source, why is his book mentioned in the article? If it's worthless, then it shouldn't be in the "see also". Guettarda 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Truth? Childhoosend, you're on the wrong site. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. What "other sources" are you referring to? I have yet to see a source which states that ID is anything but JS, unless it is the DI or members thereof, and they are cited and their position presented appropriately in the ID and DI family of articles. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:45, 1 February 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)

KvsM was that ID is religion presented as science, not that the term JS was used. The sources above are for ID as JS. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, there is no source other than your own opinion that Judge Jones meant that ID is 'junk science' as opposed to pseudoscience, cargo cult science, or some other kind of bad science. And as the group decided (above), these were not to be merged.Stonecarver 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to hear from FireWeed and KillerChihuahua as to how reliable they think the Courts are when it comes to judge the results of a 2000 election for the US Presidency. I will find it easier to understand their positions if they are consistent. --Childhood's End 14:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

(please leave space for their comments on the Courts' decisions regarding the 2000 election)

This is a red herring, and I am inclined to believe it is trolling. The election has nothing to do with JS; the court decision is accurately reported on the appropriate article; and that the courts have relevence in JS is clear as there are two paragraphs in the intro to this article which address that very subject. Do you have a statement to make about the article? KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:45, 1 February 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.

Have you read the article? It is full of peer reviewed literature and court documents calling things 'junk science.' But none of those source are editors here making WP:SYNT connections because it's not allowed.Stonecarver 16:55, 31 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.

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)

Steve Milloy

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. 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)

Junk Science is more than Steve Milloy, (if its not then I propose we just delete the whole article) additionally, you are only focusing on the negative aspect of Steve Milloy's Junk Science, there is no mention of his various positions on things he considers junk science, only the criticism. Why include only two negative sentences? Obviously, its opening a can of worms to get into Milloy's details, the most accurate and evenhanded course is to not get into Steve Milloy details at all. --Theblog 02:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Though Milloy is a notable figure for this topic, I was never happy with the lack of referencing of his connection to the Cato Institute, or the termination thereof. (The activist web site http://www.prwatch.org was cited for some details on Milloy). Per WP:EL links to blogs are normally to be avoided. I see that some material critical of Milloy still remains in the article, and his receipt of tobacco money is still mentioned, so even if consensus supports User:Theblog's deletion of the two sentences he italicized above, we will not be whitewashing Milloy's activities. EdJohnston 04:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of information about Milloy under his own entry, I just don't think it needs to be repeated at length here. --Theblog 05:02, 5 July 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)

Disputed reference: Lora May Levett's book

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)

It turns out it's a dissertation, and you can download the first 24 pages for free.[5]. I'll change the way its cited to reflect this.Yilloslime 01:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the ISBN to the number give here. It doesn't work when you click on it, but that's the ISBN given at proquest. Yilloslime 01:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't get any access at all through the link you gave. It just gives me a login screen and nothing else. If you can read the beginning part, can you tell whether it's the type of reference that would help to document anything we say in the article? (or, does it satisfy the requirements of WP:EL). If no-one else comments on this work as being significant, perhaps we can do without it). Since ProQuest doesn't have any distribution in the conventional sense (they don't use bookstores, and their 'publications' don't show up in Worldcat), one is tempted to not use them. EdJohnston 01:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The link works fine for me, but maybe there's cookie saved in my browser that allows me to go straight there or something. Anyways, try this link, and then click "download the dissertation." I haven't read much of it, but it seems to concern "junk science" in the courts, while the other references in Further reading seem to be about junk science in politics, Steve Milloy, sound science, etc, so it might be nice to keep it around. OTOH, I only restored it because I assumed its deletion was vandalism or whitewashing, since it was deleted by an anonymous editor who didn't leave an edit summary. At the time, I hadn't checked to see what the reference actually was. If you think it doesn't add anything or doesn't meet WP:EL, then feel free to remove it. Yilloslime 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the first 24 pages. It seems like a valid study on a special topic, but Google Scholar does not yet show any citations of it by other experts. It doesn't serve as a reference for anything now in the article. So my inclination would be to remove it from the reference list. EdJohnston 15:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Junk food analogy?

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)

This sounds plausible, but I haven't seen an explicit reference making the analogy. If you could find one, it would be good to include it.JQ (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Large deletion

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)

If you go back over the history you'll see that a quite extensive search produced only a small number of uses of this term by scientists and scientific organizations, many of them in a passing form like "pseudoscience, junk science and what have you". Devoting 10 per cent of the article to extensive quotes of these limited uses, without comparable quotation of the polemical uses and criticisms of the term violates WP:WEIGHT As the intro correctly says, the term is primarily one of political debate, and article should focus on this, while acknowledging its occasional use by scientists.JQ (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Merging sound science into this article

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)

I'd suggest merging the two and keeping this title (as suggested by II above). MastCell ^Talk 16:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. Generally, you may want to merge articles that cover the very same topic. I do not see the benefit in merging, just questions. Where is it established that the tautology "sound science" is related (even as an antithesis) to "junk science"? There is then a problem with the title as noted. Further, it can be argued that the opposite of "junk science" is just "science". What is "sound science"? How does it differ from "science"? (maybe it should be merged into the "science" article). What are you going to do with other articles such as "pseudoscience" or "controversial science"? Do we merge them all into "science" because they are somehow related? I would just leave it as it is and let the articles grow over time.Ekem (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You lost me when you said "the tautology sound science". Science is not by definition sound. Sound science is contrasted with junk science in our sources. See, for example, Neff and Goldman 2005: "Advocates use the terms "sound science" and "junk science" and often specific criteria for soundness to divide and characterize evidence or simply to label and exclude unwanted evidence". Pseudoscience and fringe science are different, and sources distinguish between them. In normal scientific analysis one very rarely hears the word "junk science" or "sound science", and these words are so loaded at this point that this is not likely to change. These are terms associated with political debates. Note, for example, the Advancement of Sound Science Center, operated by Steven Milloy, the founder of junkscience.com. II | (t - c) 16:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't science a systematic effort to apply the scientific method, and if so, why is that not "sound" by definition? Bias has no stake here. On that basis I applied the tautology term. I agree that the terms "sound science" and "junk science" are typically terms of a political debate.Ekem (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Science is by definition empirical. In logic "sound" means true premises and valid conclusions. Much of science is not sound, and that's not surprising, since it's a trial and error process. I suppose one could say that science as a process is sound if one accepts that all reality is physically observable and that controlled observation of the world reaches valid conclusions. Anyway, this is irrelevant, since even if sound science is a tautology, it's used by all sources in connection to junk science. If it's a tautology, that's an even better reason not to have an article devoted entirely to it. II | (t - c) 18:43, 13 June 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)

Paul Ehrlich is not an authority on environmental science or junk science

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)

I've restored the content and reference. Please don't remove content and sources based on your personal dislikes. Vsmith (talk) 19:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be a question of personal dislikes (I mean, can't w ejust as easily tell you not to put it back based upon your personal likes?) but of giving WP:UNDUEWEIGHT to an individual who is not considered an expert on the topic at hand. WP:FRINGE might also apply. DreamGuy (talk) 19:38, 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)

Sorry 'bout that. As Stephan says "...it's in a peer-reviewed paper" so, if you dislike having Paul Ehrlich's name so prominently used - then change the sentence to simply state the issue and cite the source. Vsmith (talk) 14:33, 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)

Whether I personally "...consider him to be an expert..." is irrelevant. The quote provided from that paper is relevant to the article. So, discuss the quote and its relevance, but leave out the purported "expert" bit. As I said above, if his name is troublesome ... then leave it out, the reference is relevant and significant without the "name-dropping". Vsmith (talk) 15:31, 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)

Possible refs from the sound science article

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.

• "Constructing "Sound Science" and "Good Epidemiology": Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms – Ong and Glantz 91 (11): 1749 – American Journal of Public Health". Retrieved 2007-06-28.
• Martin Kady II, Mary Clare Jalonick and Amol Sharma, "Dueling Science: Science, Policy Mix Uneasily In Legistlative Laboratory," Congressional Quarterly Weekly, March 20, 2004, page 680.
• Beware 'Sound Science.' It's Doublespeak for Trouble, a Washington Post article on "sound science" under George W. Bush.
• Doubt is Their Product, a Scientific American article, June 2005, p.96-101.
• The Usual Suspects: Industry Hacks Turn Fear on its Head, PR Watch, 3rd Quarter, 2000.
• What Constitutes Sound Science?, long article (PDF)
• The 'Bad Science' Fiction, long article from the Duke Law Journal
• Risk Assessment and 'Sound' Science, long article focusing on U.S.-E.U. relationships.
• Sourcewatch (formerly Disinfopedia) on Sound science
• What is Sound Science? What is Junk Science? by The Center for Informed Decision Making (CIDM)

II | (t - c) 17:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there still any momentum for merging sound science and junk science? I mean, the only time I hear anyone use the term "sound science" is when they're explicitly contrasting it to what they consider "junk science". The above refs provide a good outline of the context in which these terms have been employed, at least in the US. MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Controversy title

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?

Merge this article with Pseudoscience and pathological science? HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions

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)

Equal time in the media

• Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway named Singer in their book, Merchants of Doubt, as one of three contrarian physicists—along with Fred Seitz and Bill Nierenberg—who regularly position themselves as skeptics, with their views being given equal time by the media.

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)

Junk Science Links Circumcision To AIDs prevention

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)

Discussion to restore pseudoscience and antiscience as part of definition in Alternative medicine article, using sources Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, etc.

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)

Historical reference (suggested at UCSF editathon)

• Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms by Elisa K. Ong, MD, MS and Stanton A. Glantz, PhD Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Cato

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.

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)

Proposed merger

• Support -- "Bad Science" appears to be synonymous with "junk science." Bad Science should not be a redirect page. The term "bad science," is used by the scientific community to describe "scientific findings" arrived at without proper scientific procedure, and does not exclusivly refer to Goldacre's writing. Mrwuggs 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose The words "bad science" are used a lot, but the same is true for "bad + n" where n is a noun referring to almost anything of interest to humans, such as "pizza", "day", "argument" and so on. "Junk science" has a clear reference to a particular kind of (bad!) argument about science. JQ 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Junk science" has a particular connotation in the political debate (global warming, tobacco, etc), where it is widely used. Would favor keeping it separate from generically "bad" science because of this social context. MastCell 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The "Bad Science" column and forum of Ben Goldacre examines sloppy reporting of poor quality science from a scientific perspective. An notable example was the MMR vaccine scare in the UK; where an outlier view on a supposed connection between autism and vaccination was given grossly disproprtionate media coverage - leading to a significant drop in uptake of vaccines. Ben is not funded by industry to attack mainstream science - if anything he defends the mainstream science position. I have started a thread on that forum to discuss the issue Badscience and 'Junkscience' I support the redirect as above Dean Morrison 18:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

• Support --

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

The first reference above is only a passing allusion. The second is, I think, fairly close to what is in the article already. It justifies a mention as regards usage, but not a merger. JQ 05:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• More comments in support from Stonecarver

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

• • Again, not really satisfactory. This is an article written by two undergraduate students, who don't cite any sources for this criticism, but appear to be drawing on a USA Today article by Alicia Chang [7] who is apparently using her own words. BTW, I'll add in a reference to the American Dietetic Association use when I get a moment.JQ 03:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• More comments in support from Stonecarver

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

A perfect illustration of the pejorative use described in the article. Carter is a global warming skeptic/denialist making a political attack on science he doesn't like (Google Carter + Deltoid for more). Tom Harris, quoting him is a lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry. Their use of the term is exactly the same as that of Milloy. And of course his claim that many US scientists secretly reject climate science is nonsense JQ 12:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• More comments in support from Stonecarver

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."

Possible, but hard to evaluate a passing reference like this JQ 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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’

Consistent with the main use noted in the article regarding US political disputes JQ 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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.’

Both refer to legal proceedings, consistent with article JQ 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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.’

Again, consistent with uses noted in article JQ 05:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Can't exactly follow this. There's nothing in the article about victimhood.It's clear from your quotes, including the ADA that the term is used primarily in the context of US legal, political and regulatory disputes, just as the article says.

• Oppose: I agree with John Quiggin. The term "junk science" has a specific meaning, history and usage derived from its origins in the context of US "legal, political and regulatory disputes," and that meaning would be hidden if it were simply equated with "bad science." Here, by the way, is an article from the Stanford Technology Law Review which goes into detail about the origins of the term and its philosophical shortcomings. --Sheldon Rampton 07:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• More comments in support from Stonecarver

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:

1. "Cargo cult science," "junk science," and "pseudoscience" have no overlapping meaning that should be discussed in the article.
2. "junk science" is "spurious science" not "nonsense," and this does not seem to conflict with #1 above.
3. "junk science" and the conclusions reached by "data dredging" have no overlapping meaning that should be discussed in the article.
4. If a scientist has any political opinions and uses the phrase "junk science," it has no scientific meaning and is just an "attack". And that goes especially for Milloy, Brignell, the UCS, and Tom Harris.
5. An example of a non-political use of "junk science" doesn't belong in the article if it is not "pre-Huber." Or post-Huber as it turns out.
6. Political pejorative is the only valid function of the phrase "junk science."
7. The use of the phrase "junk science" by pro-environmentalists must not be presented because they didn't coin it; they co-opted it. And it might make them look as bad as the other guys.
8. "Junk science" is not an analytical phrase because it has no methodological standards to allow discrimination from "sound science" in terms of reproducibility, verifiability, and falsifiability.
9. If source actually shows that "Junk science" is an analytical phrase with methodological standards listed to allow discrimination from "sound science" in terms of reproducibility, verifiability, and falsifiability, then it deserves a reference but nothing more.
10. If a phrase has negative connotations, that precludes any possible analytical value.
11. Okay, maybe "junk science" has a legal meaning, but #1..#10 above still apply.
12. There are only 2 allowed uses of "junk science" on the article page, all others will be quietly removed, that is, "re-organized."
13. Junk science "clearly" means #1..#11 and that's obvious to the most casual observer, though, the exercise is left for the reader.
14. If a phrase has a political connotation to global warming advocates or tobacco detractors, it can have no other significant meanings.
15. If a scientist uses the phrase "junk science," it can only be because he is receiving funding from industry to attack real science.
16. If a scientist uses the phrases "junk science" and "pseudoscience" in a way that shows their overlap in meaning, it was just an allusion.
17. If a scientist uses the phrases "junk science" and "fake science" in a way that shows their overlap in meaning, it was just an illusion.
18. An undergrad or a journalist does not have enough initials after their name for their use of the phrases "junk science" and "sloppy science" showing their overlapping meaning to have any significance.
19. Definitions of "junk science" concise enough to fit in a sentence cannot be evaluated and are therefore only further proof of #1..#11 above.
20. If a psychologist uses the phrase "junk science," he couldn't mean anything analytical and is only expressing a legal opinion.
21. If a national council of scientists uses the phrase "junk science," they couldn't mean anything analytical and are only expressing a legal opinion.
22. If a scientist uses the phrase "junk science" and explains the scientific criteria for saying so, he could only be expressing a legal or political opinion.
23. Okay, maybe "junk science" has a regulatory meaning, but #1..#11 above still apply.Stonecarver Tuesday, 7-NOV-2006

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)