Reply to Article

Re: Featherlou's Junk Science--as deadly as she says?

Originally posted by OneCentStamp

I read the article and agreed completely. Nicely done.

In the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph, there's a formatting problem with BBCode italics tags showing where the word is meant to be italicized.

AAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!



No, I don't see any real cure for the problem either. I have an annoying brother-in-law who likes to do the glurge-forwarding thing, and his response to being politely informed about Snopes and checking his facts was to get snippy and bent out of joint. I don't think people *want* better information.

Re: Featherlou's Junk Science--as deadly as she says?

I read the article and agreed completely. Nicely done.

In the 3rd sentence of the 3rd paragraph, there's a formatting problem with BBCode italics tags showing where the word is meant to be italicized.

Re: Featherlou's Junk Science--as deadly as she says?

Yes, that was an interesting article. The example given is disheartening and far from unique. I wonder, though - would any of us who sadly shake our heads about the proliferation of junk science via the internet want to turn back technology so their was no internet? Probably not. It's difficult to think of a remedy for the problem featherlou raises that has any likelihood of being implemented. We need more critical thinking skills taught in schools, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Re: Featherlou's Junk Science--as deadly as she says?

What information?

Re: Featherlou's Junk Science--as deadly as she says?

Originally posted by pepperlandgirl

Actually, the love affair with junk science, and almost gleeful use of agenda-driven pseudoscience is probably even worse than she let on. I think even more nefarious than that is the constant derisive attitude certain leaders and politicians take towards real science. For example, the ongoing controversy around evolution and the ever-growing controversy around global warming. How are people supposed to know what real science even looks like when their parents, educators, and community leaders sneer that "evolution is just a theory" revealing that they know nothing of evolution, theories, or science? <snip>

Those are really good points that I hadn't thought of - maybe we need "Junk Science: Part Two." "[G}leeful use of agenda-driven pseudoscience" is a lovely turn of phrase for what is going on in the media with regards to the scientific world - they want to sensationalize things, and they want to move papers/advertising time - boring old regular science just isn't sexy enough. I hadn't even thought of the agendas of community leaders and politicians!

Your point about where people can turn to find actual, honest, reliable science is just frightening - where indeed? If they actually realize that they aren't getting very good information, I can't imagine John and Jane Smith are going to make herculean efforts to get better information, and why should they trust that, when they thought they were getting good information the first time?

Featherlou's Junk Science--as deadly as she says?

Actually, the love affair with junk science, and almost gleeful use of agenda-driven pseudoscience is probably even worse than she let on. I think even more nefarious than that is the constant derisive attitude certain leaders and politicians take towards real science. For example, the ongoing controversy around evolution and the ever-growing controversy around global warming. How are people supposed to know what real science even looks like when their parents, educators, and community leaders sneer that "evolution is just a theory" revealing that they know nothing of evolution, theories, or science?

Anyway, I was not aware of the controversy that featherlou described in her article. I found it fascinating, though not at all surprising. I hope that she'll write more of these sorts of exposes in the future.