Comments on: The Dangers of Junk Science: Non-Climate Version

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:32:56 +0000

Very true, Justin. There are theories that seem to some scientists to be “too beautiful” to be relinquished. And as with any human endeavor, egos are very much in play.

By: Justin Ennis

Justin Ennis — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 15:16:00 +0000

I’ve been thinking a lot about this lately and it seems that even within the hard sciences there is a possibility of “truth drift” (for lack of a better phrase) if the findings of the theoretical side aren’t corroborated by subsequent experimental results and solid math. So I think the hard sciences are sometimes prone to this (see the other replies on this thread) but certainly not as prone.

By: Republibot 3.0

Republibot 3.0 — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:02:01 +0000

I’d submit that SETI is a pernicious example of Junk Science. Granted, its $4million budget is a pittance these days, but it’s still throwing money down a hole that we could better use towards building a supercollider or feeding widdows and orphans. Everyone involved in the project knows it can’t possibly work. Why? Two reasons:

1) It’s based around the Drake Equation, one of the most blatant examples of pull-it-out-of-your-ass pseudoscience from the 1960s. It’s an equation that’s supposed to predict the number of sentient species in our galaxy, and it sounds reasonable enough on the surface, however even a cursory look shows that it has SEVEN variables in it that we have no idea how to calculate. It means nothing, it’s just a pretty batch of numbers on a blackboard.

2) SETI’s purpose is to listen for the alien equivalent of Fibber McGee and Molly reruns spreading out through space from their home star. The problem is that we know full well that radio signals disperse fairly rapidly, and as a result you can’t detect them over stellar distances. After a light year they’ve dispersed so much as to be indistinguishable from background noise. What that means is that even if aliens *were* transmitting Fibber McGee and Molly from Proxima Centauri, we’d never hear it.

By: Mr. Sideous

Mr. Sideous — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:50:44 +0000

People like Gladwell, and shows like “Lie To Me” remind me of a madness in modern life. I don’t know about Europe or Canada, but definitely in the Us of A: The mania for control. Be the best, beat the competition, grab the red bull, do whatever it takes to get an “edge”, be admired for conquering your career, your health, your love life and your yard. The idea of reading people’s body language, is reading their minds, is the ultimate edge.

Thats my pop psych theory.

By: Raoul Ortega

Raoul Ortega — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:43:17 +0000

So-called “dark matter”: The phlogiston and luminiferous aether of the 21st century.

By: dr. zoon

dr. zoon — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:02:27 +0000

string theory is one of my favs …

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:26:52 +0000

A few decades back, the APA voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM. I’m not going to get into whether it’s a mental illness or not, but I just want to point out that true science is not accomplished by majority rule.

By: trzupr

trzupr — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:13:04 +0000

I weep for what has happened to my beloved science sometimes – and I am not alone. It’s tragic, and I don’t know how we fix it.

You are right Floyd, the soft sciences are full of this crap. Hard sciences – like chemistry, physics, mathematics, etc. – are not prone to bastardization like this. But when you deal with alchemy, the media will shill any theory that they find interesting.

By: Lars Walker

Lars Walker — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 19:00:14 +0000

“Lie to Me” always seemed a little glib, to my eyes.

And I always wondered, how do actors do that show? If there are infallible “tells” when you say something that’s not true, wouldn’t actors be displaying them? And if it’s possible to suppress them, the whole theory falls to the ground.