Talk:Junk science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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

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.

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/u/n/Talk%7EJunk_science_efb4.html"