| Bad Science |
Website Links For Junk Science |
Information AboutBad Science |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT JUNK SCIENCE | |
| voodoo science | |
| pejoratives | |
| types of scientific fallacy | |
| public relations terminology | |
|
As with many other Ideological terms, there is often no political agreement as to which side of a debate constitutes "junk", and which "real" science, though the Scientific Community typically has an overwhelming majority opinion. Public debates on Environmental and Public Health issues seem particularly prone to this problem. These debates are further complicated when scientists use Mass Media to publicize their research. USE OF THE TERM John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of '' PR Watch '' believe that the term "junk science" is often used to deride scientific findings which stand in the way of short-term corporate Profit maximization. In their book '' Trust Us, We're Experts '' ( 2001 ), they write that industry has launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science," often failing to employ the Scientific Method themselves. For example, the Tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research showing negative effects of smoking and Second-hand Smoke , through various Astroturf Groups . More consonant theories may be praised using the term "sound science". Another example for discrediting disliked scientific findings is a large industry campaign to "reposition Global Warming as theory, not fact" that is described in detail by Stauber and Rampton. Anti-global warming Environmental Scientists and spokespersons for Corporation s and government Bureaucracies counter by saying that the scientific evidence used by their critics actually constitutes junk science and should not be used as a basis for policy. In a "Whitecoat Project" as keeping alive the controversy of environmental tobacco smoke. {Link without Title} SEE ALSO
FURTHER READING AND INFORMATION
EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|