--- Mario Goveia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> provided the following link and excerpt: > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,180148,00.html > > > The following excerpt is from the link above: > > > "Its that time of year again when we at > JunkScience.com reflect on all the dubious > achievements and irresponsible claims made by the > junk science community throughout the year. >
This JunkScience website is being repeatedly provided here by the above poster. It is important to note that this website is not an objective expert scientific resource. Its author is a lawyer associated with a non-scientific think tank called the Cato Institute which promotes the libertarian ideology. None of the criticisms advanced by this lawyer and his website deal with genuine original scientific research as published in the mainstream scientific journals. They are mostly directed at distortions or exaggerations of scientific and quasi-scientific findings reported in the popular media. The criticisms are also highly selective, invariably skewed by a conservative or libertarian ideological agenda. For a thorough skeptical treatment of the JunkScience.com website and its author, please see the following Skeptic's Dictionary article: http://skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html Here are some pertinent excerpts from it: "The Junk Science Page is not about junk science so much as it is about anything which does not support a conservative or libertarian political agenda for businesses and industries that do not like regulations that limit their ability to pollute or poison us or our environment. Milloy uses the term 'junk science' mainly as a political and polemical term. What the majority of scientists call sound science, Milloy usually calls junk science. And what he calls 'sound science', the majority of scientists usually call junk science." "Much of what he calls junk science isn't science at all, however. For example, individuals who blame their illnesses on their cell phones or the power lines in their neighborhood are not doing bad science; they are not doing science at all. They are simply using bad logic (committing the post hoc fallacy). Scientists who conclude that global warming may be significantly enhanced by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels, may be wrongcurrently the scientific consensus in on their sidebut that does not make their work junk science. Politicians who advocate taking actions based on what might be happening rather than on what is generally agreed to be happening may be too cautious or opportunistic, but they are not junk scientists. They're not scientists at all. Lawyers who defend people who blame their illnesses on their cell phones, the local power company's nearby transformer or the silicon implant their client voluntarily sought out, are not doing junk science; they're not doing science at all. They too are hoping that the jury will use bad logic and reason that if one thing happened after another, then the former caused the latter." "Milloy's so-called junk science page is full of misinformation and misleading claims, and makes little effort to separate science from policy claims made by scientists. He can cite articles by scientists who support his beliefs. The hundreds who come to different conclusions are attacked for their bad motives and junk methodologies." Cheers, Santosh -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Goa - 2005 Santosh Trophy Champions | | | | Support Soccer Activities at the grassroots in our villages | | Vacationing in Goa this year-end - Carry and distribute Soccer Balls | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
