I have become alarmed at the way junk science has been used to mold the public consciousness and drive some sort of an agenda.
For want of a better definition, lets agree that junk science is the appeal to public sentimentemotion based on anced;otal (sp?) "evidence".
Hence we have the attacks on the silicone breast implants--now reversed. ( I am not advocating breast implants just using the case to remind us how junk science resulted in their removal from the market place and the financial impact on Dow chemical.)

Second Hand Smoke--I think we can all agree it can be distastful and foul, but there are no scientific studies that link second hand smoke to cancer--although it is a "fact" in the popular mindset. The UN spiked ( i.e. buried and refused to release) a study that fauiled to link second hand smoke to cancer.

Global Warming-- I guess we all pretty much agree that the last several years have been warmer than hose preceeding several years, but it has not been shown that this is more than the typical warming and cooling cycle that a dynamic Earth has experiencerd since it first assumed the present form.

I am sure there are other examples, but the purpose here is not to debate the relative merits of the arguments, but to look behind the curtain, if you will, and try to see whats going on.

Is it simply that out schools have failed to teach critical thinking? Many of the ideas that have become popular, were things we would have laughed about if someone would have advocated them when I was in school--they are just silly on the face of it. i.e. the "discovery" splashed on a Time Magazine a few years ago that " Men and Women Really Are Different"!

Many people say "follow the money" in a search for reasons in many situations. Does that search lead anywhere?

Is it possible that some group is bent on the destruction of the American culture? If so, who, and to what benefit?

Who really benefits from all the changes wrought on society brought about through use of junk science?

The mass media who are the Constitutional watchdogs to protect us from this type of trash, are the biggest cheerleaders in favor of it. Why?

Let me end with a quote from an op/ed by David Deming, a geophysicist and professor at Univ of OK, writing in defense of Senator Inhofe's criticism of the way Global Warming is being reported,
Sen Jams Inhofe is....courageous to insist on truth, objectivity, and sound science. Truth in science doesn't depend on human consensus or political correctness. The fact that the majority of journalists and pundits bray like sheep is meaningless. Galileo, another "social dinosaur," said " the crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite."


So the question is, why has junk science been allowed to dominat the political agenda, and who benefits? Who is behind the scenes, pulling the strings to make the puppets dance?

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

On the silicone breast implants, dow ultimately admitted liability, so I don't know where you get that this was junk science.

Second hand smoke in the home is causally linked to childhood asthma, premateur hypertension and a lot of other illnesses.

There are a lot of examples of "junk science" but these aren't two of them, however, I do understand how the insurance industry has offered these two up to malign the trial lawyers who uncovered the problems. I get chain emails too.

The problem seems more fundamental to me than just junk science. The issue is the ultimate reliability of human knowledge and its relationship to social authority. Science has no absolute claim on knowledge. We are only acting on what is not yet disproven. Scientific knowledge is always contestable and often contested, so there's no ultimate test for junk science versus real science. The best we could ever get is scientific consensus expressed thru some authorizing body, which ultimately sits in in bowl of doubt.
The coin of democracy is uncertainty. The only alternative is a papal bull.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Human knowledge, whether scientific or otherwise, is a malleable substance that can be shaped and manipulated by artisans regardless of their skill.

Sam Hill

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

Thanks for saving my fingers making that correction, Kerry.






btw, as to the original question, and at the certainty of being flamed, it is the beneficiaries of research grants that benefit the most from junk science (in my experience). I know professors, doctors, engineers and others who get paid to 'study' certain issues funded by the feds, and gleefully do so to obtain 3 mos. vacation in Guam, $200K, lab equipment they can use on another project, ect....even in the face of either already knowing the answer, a cheaper way to find it or that it doesn't exist.

Respectfully - I'm not really quite sure I buy into your question. IMO, all these topics are legitimate areas of scientific study. Furthermore, the evidence gathered from direct scientific study of these subjects you have used as examples is solid - as solid as many scientific hypothesis can be before they become accepted as 'fact' - in as much as any science can be labelled as such.

I have a science background and am familiar with both the funding process, the politics behind it and the ways in which science is often misrepresented by the media.

Anyone who still thinks global warming is a myth has simply not done enough research into the subject, IMO. The doubt that man has not had a direct impact on the climate has been effectively removed.

Cigarette smoke is carcinogenic. This hypothesis, through years of excellent research and medicine, has been proven. Again - as much as any science or research can be proven. It is almost never black and white. DNA evidence was controversial in its infancy. Now? So does it matter if the smoke is directly inhaled or is second-hand? Not IMO. The only difference is concentration levels. Second hand smoke will be diluted as per the surrounding environmental conditions, and therefore its effects could be presumed to be less than direct inhalation. Yet, the fact remains you are inhaling unfiltered carcinogenic smoke at some concentration.

Silicone breast implants I do not know enough to comment on.

Suffice it to say that greater minds than ours have spend lifetimes and careers trying to answer questions like these, and many such pursuits have been untainted by political or financial motivation. There are good scientists out there, doing good research, and constantly being evaluated by their peers.

We would be foolish to ignore such research, and its results. To label it junk science? Even more so, IMO.

The problem is that people expect a black-and-white FACT. Science rarely deals with 'fact'. It is more along the lines of statistics and trends. A hypothesis is presented, tested by research, the results analyzed, and if there is a significant finding either way, the results are published into journal literature and become another key to the puzzle. The puzzle itself, is never really complete.

However, even a trend can become accepted as essentially 'fact' when the statistics are significant.

Media further clouds the role by putting political and social spins onto specific angles of research or specific outcomes, without representing an unbiased and complete opinion. This does serve to promote confusion and mistrust, IMO. So if that is what you are referring to as junk science - the media's often rushed and spun delivery of 'science', I agree!

__________________
Chris
2007 E550 4Matic - 61,000 Km - Iridium Silver, black leather, Sport package, Premium 2 package
2007 GL450 4Matic - 62,000 Km - Obsidian Black Metallic, black leather, all options
1998 E430 - sold
1989 300E - 333,000 Km - sold
1977 280E - sold
1971 250 - retired

"And a frign hat. They gave me a hat at the annual benefits meeting. I said. how does this benefit me. I dont have anything from the company.. So they gave me a hat." - TheDon

[QUOTE=. I get chain emails too.[/QUOTE]

Sorry, John,
I am not on any chain mailing lists, so this is all from me--for good or ill.

I do not accept that "truth" is malleable. "Spin" is malleable. "Propaganda" is malleable. "Truth" should be unchanging. In the real world, as opposed to some ethereal mathmatics, 2+2 ALWAYS = 4. It is a true sum. Water changes its state at 32 degrees and 212 degrees fahrenheit. The weight of the atmosphere is 14.7 pounds per square inch, ( more or less).

If someone makes the statement, " Man is the cause of Global warming, and if not reversed, it will kill all human life on earth by the year 2050", We should be able to say that the statement is either TRUE, or FASLE. I would expect to see data assembled and analyzed, and the methods of analysis checked and peer-reviewed until it was ( fairly) certain that the data, analysis and conclusions were correct. What we have is like people getting partial credit for answering a question, even if they got the answer entirely wrong. What we have is a news/ entertainment industry presenting part of the story, but shamefully neglecting anything that might argue against their view.

I see the mechanism, I just wonder who, or what is behind it all.

__________________
1982 300SD " Wotan" ..On the road as of Jan 8, 2007 with Historic Tags

You must be very forward thinking then, because if you google "Junk Science", the top three gripes from the tort reform guys that sponsor the 10K or so "Junk Science" websites are: Breast Implants, Global Warming and Second Hand Smoke, which topics are all topics of discussion with these groups now because of several recent court rulings.

Guess it could just be a coincidence.

I already gave my answer as to who benefits from real junk science to not get drawn into the tort deform debate.

You want junk science? Look at psychiatry and psychology. The way they gather the data is scientific. Their interpretation is too dependent on the practitioner.

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

I just don't see how scientific truth can ever satisfy that model. Math may get closer but even 2+2=4 is only true on a base 10 number system. Math depends on what system you choose to use to do the measuring. Do you use Euclidean geometry or non-Euclidean geometery?
Science is based on observation, imagination, hypotheses and testing. It also has a big component of dumb luck. It can go wrong on all these levels so all scientific truth has to be provisional.
Perhaps Plato's static eternal world might have some kind of absolute truth and falsity but it seems pretty remote from ours.

__________________
1977 300d 70k--sold 08
1985 300TD 185k+
1984 307d 126k--sold 8/03
1985 409d 65k--sold 06
1984 300SD 315k--daughter's car
1979 300SD 122k--sold 2/11
1999 Fuso FG Expedition Camper
1993 GMC Sierra 6.5 TD 4x4
1982 Bluebird Wanderlodge CAT 3208--Sold 2/13

If it was not a chain email, then it must have been from 'conservative' talk radio, one of those mouth-breathers like Rush, Savage, Boortz, Hannity, etc.

__________________
TXBill



Former owner of a few diesel MB cars
1998 Lexus ES 300 In Chicago We Trust

O.K.Gambler,I'll see your Platonic Empiricism and raise you a Pythagorean Externalism.

Clearly stated and I completely agree.

Concerning the junknaciousness of science, it is plentiful and usually uncovered readily through the scientific verification process in which other, independent scientists eventually check the veracity of the original claim. Then somebody checks the checker, etc, until folks in the community are pretty satisfied that some ground simply isn't worth plowing. That process takes time. Sometimes decades or more. For most things it isn't terribly important and waiting for verification/falsification isn't a big deal.

It becomes a big deal under two circumstances (which may actually be the same thing): A threat to life, or a financial burden. In those cases we prefer not to wait for the glacial movement of academic research. Instead, we want definitive, causative answers and we want them now. Often that is do-able so we throw research money at the particular problem until a definitive answer is beaten from the typically equivocating theorists.

Unfortunately, some problems are so difficult to disprove that they defy solution no matter how much money is thrown at them. These are the problems that cause lots of money to be spent and generate mountains of equivocal results. They usually wind-up in court and then what we end-up with is a best-guess argument and a consensus solution. It is only accidentally science-based. This type of result increases the skepticism of folks who lose money so they get politicians involved to redress a "wrong." At that time whatever the basis of the original scientific problem, any connection with reality is accidental and should best be viewed as an aberration.

Bot