Talk:Junk science

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I'm deleting the content ("global warming")of this article because it does not describe "junk science". Following links to this page, I find offsite that Dick Thornburgh uses the term to describe the testimony of unqualified persons.[1] in which case it should be called "junk testimony" because there is no science, or pretense thereof, involved.

Deleted: "In reality it is the practice of appropriating incomplete elements of research and using them to support flawed arguments."

Why: It was wrong. Junk science is not a practice, it is an allegation coined by certain chemical-related industries. This article was created to report what the Consumers Union said about the term “junk science.” The term has no other meaning unless someone can present evidence to contradict CU, which is usually a reliable source.

Also deleted run-on sentences added 11/06/03. The run-on additions were more or less meaningless and tended to support the same flawed premise re:junk science as that noted above.

--- I have removed the material on Steven Milloy and the FDA warning on mercury in fish. While he challenges the science behind the FDA warning he does not use the term 'junk science'; thus it can't be cited as an example of the term "junk science" being invoked to dismiss concerns about environmental and health issues.

However, a case study on the reaction of Milloy et al on the FDA warning seems worthy of inclusion in SourceWatch somewhere -- for the moment I have kept revised material and will advise when I have found a more appropriate home for it. -- bob