Junk Science vs Sound Science.

[Technosoul]

What is the difference between junk science and sound science (aka Real Science)?

Can both reach a truth or a fact that is acceptable?

Is their a difference in the kind of research or experiments being employed between the two?

[Jack]

I agree with Wikipedia's take on it:

Junk science is a term used in U.S. political and legal disputes that brands an advocate's claims about scientific data, research, analyses as spurious. The term generally conveys a pejorative connotation that the advocate is driven by political, ideological, financial, and other unscientific motives. The term was first used in relation to expert testimony in civil litigation. More recently, it has been used to criticize research on the harmful environmental or public health effects of corporate activities, and occasionally in response to such criticism. "Junk science" is often counterposed to "sound science", a term used to describe studies that favor the accuser's point of view. It is the role of political interests which distinguishes debate over junk science from discussions of pseudoscience and controversial science. The terms 'junk science' and 'sound science' do not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; they are primarily terms of political debate.

Junk science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've used the term "real science" to differentiate between inquiries that follow the scientific method and those that don't (pseudo science). But I'm using those terms to make a point, not to suggest the terms themselves are used in science.

[Jack]

My opinion on what I suspect you were really trying to ask:

"Bad", "pseudo", "junk" science, whatever you call it, isn't science at all. There aren't degrees of scientific inquiry, there aren't lower standards of validity for some aspects of science than others. "Junk" science is a contention disguised as science. It's a hypothesis that can't even begin to be dealt with in a truly scientific fashion.

[Technosoul]

Let us say that people who have the proper education did a study to compare a lifestyle with a particular disease. Let us say the had people mark yes or no to some questions.

Let us say they asked the questions of people who have cancer in order to find out the cause of that disease.

The survey discovered that 90 percent of the cancer victims watched TV for more then three hours a day. They then noted that lifestyle and that it would indicate a possible link between TV viewing and cancer.

They then tested a TV tube and found it can emit some radeation but of a much lower dose then we find in nuclear waste. But enough to pass a law that you cannot dump a TV in your trash as it contains a toxic substance that might effect air quality (or the ozone ... whatever?)

Based on those two facts can they then announce that TV watching is the cause of cancer and would that interpretation of the data be "sound science" or "junk science" (aka pseudo science) ?

Can a survey to collect data about the behavior of people produce evidence that is scientifically correct enough to make a claim about a disease or medical problem?

Or would a peer review of the way the data was collected weed out those studies that were improperly conducted, where the questions are designed to produce a particular result, or where questions did not cover everything, where not enough people took part in the survey, or where those questions might cause the study group to be dishonest in their answers, before the study results can be published as being a scientific discovery?

[Jack]

Limiting my answer to the examples you give, I'd say that's sound science. A premise was put forth, tests conducted, results compared and conclusions drawn. Then action was taken based on those conclusions. "Junk" science wouldn't have bothered testing or examining results. It goes from premise to conclusion with no intermediate steps.

[Domino]

I guess we need to recognize a subset of sound science: frivolous science.

[Tycoon]

I would say that junk science is trying to prove somebody wrong by hmm... attempting (and failing) to poke holes in certain statistics and then completely ignoring sound scientifical evidence.

[Technosoul]

Is there anything that falls short of sound science? And how would you discribe that?

I hope that all of you who are really knowledgable about science will not ignore this post just because you dislike me (Technosoul) and will take part in this thread.

Here is a web link I want you to look at. In your opinon would taking the quiz give you an honest answer about the status of your health?

Interactive stress quiz for instant health risk results!

Is that sound science at work, or something else short of being scientific?

[Tycoon]

I know one thing that I would consider perfectly sound science.

Obvious medical and chemical changes in a person caused by smoking cigarettes!

[gela]

Since this is obviously a spin off of the smoking thread, I will make it clear.
Technosoul believes that epiddemiology is not 'sound science'.

Do you agree or disagree?

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela Since this is obviously a spin off of the smoking thread, I will make it clear. Technosoul believes that epiddemiology is not 'sound science'. Do you agree or disagree?

I never posted any remark in that other thread about epiddemiology other then to say that I had never researched anything about it.

The concept about junk science came up in that thread and so I thought I would find out what our scientific forum people knew about that term. This is not a spin off of anything and you anti-smoking people should not turn this thread into another debate about smoking.

[gela]

Quote by: Technosoul Comparing a person's life style to their health problems is science but not what is termed as "real" science. It provides some stats for making an speuclative guess, but it is not proof. That is partly because the study can be slanted to get the results you have on your agenda, and because they could leave out a lot of possibles when they conduct that study group. I have debated this, any real scientist would agree with me, and yet you deny it.

This is what you posted when I mentioned epidemiology in the other thread.
You say its not what is termed as 'real' science.
Later on in the thread when I counter that there is no such term as 'real' science you reply by saying you ment 'sound' science.
Stick to your guns.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela This is what you posted when I mentioned epidemiology in the other thread. You say its not what is termed as 'real' science. Later on in the thread when I counter that there is no such term as 'real' science you reply by saying you ment 'sound' science. Stick to your guns.

Sound science is real science, no difference. The term "sound" is most often used within the scientific community and is the preferred word. "junk" science is a word created mainly for the purposes of debate, as a name for any study that does not follow the guidelines or procedures used in real (aka sound) science.

You said that you could not find anything when you googled the words "real science" and so I suggested that you should google the term "sound science". And gave reasons why.

I also said that I had never looked up anything about epidemiology and frankly I did not know what you were talking about. I will now look it up.

Epidemiology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, such a study is subject to Random Error.

That kind of science is subject to systematic error.

That kind of study can employ selective bias.

If epidemilogy contains random errors and systematic error, and if selective bias is used It is junk science and not sound science.

Epidemilogy cannot be trusted to give us absolute facts "beyond a shadow of doubt".

[Jack]

Epidemilogy cannot be trusted to give us absolute facts "beyond a shadow of doubt".

No field of science can, Technosoul.

[Century 25]

Read Carl Sagan's " The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark" - Check here: The Demon-Haunted World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of my fav books. He would be shocked to see how much worse it is now.. especially with a 'leader' we have as prez..

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood No field of science can, Technosoul.

I do not totally agree, they can test a chemical and know if it will distroy the liver or not. They can test rat poison to know if it has deadly effects.
Such tests done in labortory conditions where you study the effects that chemicals have on something else, is pretty sound science in my book.
Pretty trustworthy. Especially if the test is repeated over and over to compare the results.

The study of DNA as a means of identification in criminal science is pretty trustworthy, at least in our courts of law. The lawyers are no longer calling it junk science to bebate a case.

Being bias cannot really influence the results of sound science, errors are far less possible. It is not really a theory that rat poison can make you very sick because it will happen to everyone, not just some of the people some of the time.

[gela]

I do not totally agree, they can test a chemical and know if it will distroy the liver or not. They can test rat poison to know if it has deadly effects. Such tests done in labortory conditions where you study the effects that chemicals have on something else, is pretty sound science in my book. Pretty trustworthy. Especially if the test is repeated over and over to compare the results.

I see biased in your evaluation of epidemology.

We can test a life style choice, and see if it will lead to a disease. Yes, there are alot of variables to consider - and if it is done correctly, all plausible variables would be taken into consideration.
We can repeat the test millions of times across a population.
We can get a result, and make a conclusion.

It can be manipulated because of bias, but that means that the experiment isn't being carried out properly. The same thing can happen to any science.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gela I see biased in your evaluation of epidemology. We can test a life style choice, and see if it will lead to a disease. Yes, there are alot of variables to consider - and if it is done correctly, all plausible variables would be taken into consideration. We can repeat the test millions of times across a population. We can get a result, and make a conclusion. It can be manipulated because of bias, but that means that the experiment isn't being carried out properly. The same thing can happen to any science.

I agree with you (for a change) that epidemology might actually come to the right conclusion.

None the less, when I ask for proof that the study was done the right way to avoid such random errors, or bias, you cannot provide me personally with the data needed to confirm that. Only the claims made by the study group.

Now if Gallo or someone wanted to debate me about evolution or the theory of the Big Bang they could also provide me a link to the evidence and why the conclusions were made. Fosil evidence or the actural physics used _ etc. The anti-smoking people that you represent here never do that. They just make claims and then say "believe it or not". They expect us to take thier word for it on faith.

They only use science so they can sound like they got expert knowledge backing them up..... to scare people. But where is that knowledge so I can look at how they conducted the study and so I can look at the data used or collected. Why keep it a secret from the public?

The fact still remains that the epidemiology used to show that smoking is a health hazard can contain errors or bias. The general public has no way via a internet link to know if the studies you refer too did or did not.

You got no proof to present.

[Jack]

Being bias cannot really influence the results of sound science, errors are far less possible. It is not really a theory that rat poison can make you very sick because it will happen to everyone, not just some of the people some of the time.

Certainly science can say "in every case we've examined" or "the results of every test we've conducted have produced the same results" and arrive at conclusions which cannot be disputed up to this moment. But my point was that science never claims to produce results or reach conclusions that "give us absolute facts "beyond a shadow of doubt"." Science is not infallible. Only supernatural religions pretend to offer "absolute facts". In our reality, where humans have limited and imperfect knowledge, conclusions of absolute fact are not possible.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood Certainly science can say "in every case we've examined" or "the results of every test we've conducted have produced the same results" and arrive at conclusions which cannot be disputed up to this moment. But my point was that science never claims to produce results or reach conclusions that "give us absolute facts "beyond a shadow of doubt"." Science is not infallible. Only supernatural religions pretend to offer "absolute facts". In our reality, where humans have limited and imperfect knowledge, conclusions of absolute fact are not possible.

It is somewhat like double-speaking to say a study cannot be disputed and in the same breath say a study cannot reach an absolute fact.

But I get your point none-the-less. I think the anti-smoking studies are bias.

For example: They took data from a good study about the health hazards of car fumes (fosil fuel) and used it as evidence for their conclusion. It makes sense that mega-does of Carbon Monoxide is unhealthy, expecially since cars and trucks polute the air with tons of Carbon Monoxide everyday. Then those who conduct a study on cigarette smoke find a teenie weenie trace amount of Carbon Monoxide in tobacco smoke and make a claim that smoking causes cancer, based on the evidence that tons of smoke (aka smog) from the heavy traffic of vehicles can cause cancer. Just because Carbon Monoxide is on the "list" as something that might cause cancer.

There is a big difference between a micro amount of C.M. and a ton of the it. A difference between an overdose and a small almost undectable amount. They twisted the facts to fit their agenda.

I call that junk science. That is like saying your prescription drug causes death because it contains a trace amount of a chemical that might kill you if you if you drank a large amont of it.