Junk Science web site

There is a web site about "junk science" which I think would be useful for almost everyone to read. Here is the location:

http://www.junkscience.com/

This does necessary have a connection with topics discussed here, but quite often various posters refer to material that would probably be considered junk science by some. In discussing the science of almost any topic, there are always vested interests that may be inclined to use dubious science in support of their cause.

 

From one of the links at the Junk Science web site, comes the following comments:

Even before lawsuits became so popular, the Nobel Prize-winning chemist Irving Langmuir suggested criteria to identify what he called pathological, or fraudulent, science (now called junk science). Society should ignore claims of hazard when:
1. The maximum effect is observed by a process of barely detectable intensity, and the effect is largely independent of the
intensity of the apparent causal agent.
2. The effect remains close to the limit of detectability.
3. Claims of great measurement accuracy, or of profoundness, persisting the face of mounting evidence to the contrary.
4. Theories are put forward that fail the test of being the simplest explanation for the available information.
5. Criticisms are met by ad hoc explanations: the proponents "always have an answer -- always."

Another more succinct criterion is: "The skeptics attack the facts, or the science, but the junk scientists resort to ad hominem attacks on the skeptics."

 

There is a good example of junk science on the following web site:

http://www.whatareweswallowing.freeserve.co.uk/coughandawe.htm

The author of the above page is a fellow by the name of Steve Ransom. Who is Steve Ransom? Well, there is no indication that he is qualified to speak expertly on medical topics. Also, he is known for being co-author of a book that claims that the disease AIDS does not exist and that it is a conspiracy by various economic interests. I bring this bit of junk science up here because on another part of this forum, that is in the category of "News that affects Baptists", Helen has written approvingly of the idea that SARS does not exist and she is taking the line advocated by the article above written by Steve Ransom. Is Helen doing a good job in evaluating the evidence in this case? I don't think so.

 

Well Helen, now that you have had a chance to get some answers to your questions, do you still think that SARS is all hype and a manufactured crisis, as you said in the title to your thread? Just curious. You really ought to look at a person's educational background and qualifications before endorsing their ideas.

 

But can you answer my question. Do you still think that SARS is a hyped and manufactured crisis? Or do you think that you posted before investigating it carefully?