Best reading on junk science
July 1, 2009 7:44 PM Subscribe
What's the best reading available for a summary of "Junk Science"?
I'm looking for books/papers/literature at that demonstrate [1] Why people resort to junk science [2] What it looks like [3] How it's used and "proved" [4] Where it's been used [eg. ID, AIDS denial, global warming, cigarette cancer], [5] why it's important and the impact it's had [6] and how to argue against it.
I'm looking for books/papers/literature at that demonstrate [1] Why people resort to junk science [2] What it looks like [3] How it's used and "proved" [4] Where it's been used [eg. ID, AIDS denial, global warming, cigarette cancer], [5] why it's important and the impact it's had [6] and how to argue against it.
Trick or Treatment is pretty approachable for the novice, but it only focuses on alternative treatments in medicine.
posted by reptile at 7:56 PM on July 1, 2009
posted by reptile at 7:56 PM on July 1, 2009
Just to be clear (and possibly forestall some non-helpful answers): you are talking about junk science and not pseudoscience, correct?
Pseudoscience is stuff like ESP, alien abductions, homeopathy, feng shui, fortune-telling, plant consciousness, etc.
The term "junk science" sometimes includes pseudoscience, but more generally refers to, e.g., an unscrupulous corporation paying a research group to publish falsified or misleading data in furtherance of the corporation's interests. Or, PR efforts to mislead the public about the scientific consensus on a particular issue (e.g., "smoking doesn't hurt you").
Junk science generally operates within the scientific establishment, but with misleading data. Pseudoscience may or may not pretend to be part of the establishment, and operates with flawed methods.
posted by ixohoxi at 7:57 PM on July 1, 2009
Pseudoscience is stuff like ESP, alien abductions, homeopathy, feng shui, fortune-telling, plant consciousness, etc.
The term "junk science" sometimes includes pseudoscience, but more generally refers to, e.g., an unscrupulous corporation paying a research group to publish falsified or misleading data in furtherance of the corporation's interests. Or, PR efforts to mislead the public about the scientific consensus on a particular issue (e.g., "smoking doesn't hurt you").
Junk science generally operates within the scientific establishment, but with misleading data. Pseudoscience may or may not pretend to be part of the establishment, and operates with flawed methods.
posted by ixohoxi at 7:57 PM on July 1, 2009
I have something for you it is a pdf email me & I will send it too you. it is exactly what you are looking for:-)
posted by patnok at 8:14 PM on July 1, 2009
posted by patnok at 8:14 PM on July 1, 2009
Response by poster: Just to be clear (and possibly forestall some non-helpful answers): you are talking about junk science and not pseudoscience, correct?
I am absolutely looking for "junk science" [ie. false and misleading science] not "pseudoscience" [ie. pretend science], although I understand there may be considerable overlap between the two.
posted by Neale at 8:20 PM on July 1, 2009
I am absolutely looking for "junk science" [ie. false and misleading science] not "pseudoscience" [ie. pretend science], although I understand there may be considerable overlap between the two.
posted by Neale at 8:20 PM on July 1, 2009
Sorry about that, then; the Randi and Gardner books are about pseudoscience.
These guys may help: JunkScience.com
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:43 PM on July 1, 2009
These guys may help: JunkScience.com
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:43 PM on July 1, 2009
You're going to want to read at least three books:
Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research by Thomas O. McGarity & Wendy E. Wagner.
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, by Marcia Angell.
Those are both rather journalistic works, but for a serious academic treatment, look at Science Bought and Sold: Essays in the Economics of Science, edited by Philip Mirowski and Esther-Mirjam Sent. It's a consideration of both the causes and nature of so-called "junk science", who does it, and how it gets employed.
posted by valkyryn at 8:47 PM on July 1, 2009
Bending Science: How Special Interests Corrupt Public Health Research by Thomas O. McGarity & Wendy E. Wagner.
The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, by Marcia Angell.
Those are both rather journalistic works, but for a serious academic treatment, look at Science Bought and Sold: Essays in the Economics of Science, edited by Philip Mirowski and Esther-Mirjam Sent. It's a consideration of both the causes and nature of so-called "junk science", who does it, and how it gets employed.
posted by valkyryn at 8:47 PM on July 1, 2009
Bob Park's Voodoo Science: From Foolishness to Fraud is one of the classics of the genre. It focuses especially on the marketing and transmission of junk science, and on the line between mistakes and self-deception and actual fraud.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:21 PM on July 1, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:21 PM on July 1, 2009
Junk science is most often a term used by right-wing PR/think tanks that have been paid by special interest groups; it's used to attempt to cast doubt and slander on actual science that stands in the way of corporate interests.
Ex: the owner of JunkScience.com is a man named Steve Milloy, who has viciously and for decades attacked everything between second-hand smoke and food safety practices to the ban on DDT and the evidence of global warming. He often does so in books that have the guise of "pop science," with a similar appearance, branding and feel to a Freakanomics, for example.
Of course, in reality, Milloy is a current or former paid shill of the tobacco, pesticide, oil and mining lobbies. And he attacks natural election and evolution.
So, basically, when someone derides something using the term "junk science," it is likely that they're an advocate of Milloy, and are, in fact, trying to attack REAL science by advocating falsehoods that stand against the often overwhelming majority of scientific evidence. Not always the case, of course, but that's generally the most widespread definition in America today.
posted by Damn That Television at 11:43 PM on July 1, 2009
Ex: the owner of JunkScience.com is a man named Steve Milloy, who has viciously and for decades attacked everything between second-hand smoke and food safety practices to the ban on DDT and the evidence of global warming. He often does so in books that have the guise of "pop science," with a similar appearance, branding and feel to a Freakanomics, for example.
Of course, in reality, Milloy is a current or former paid shill of the tobacco, pesticide, oil and mining lobbies. And he attacks natural election and evolution.
So, basically, when someone derides something using the term "junk science," it is likely that they're an advocate of Milloy, and are, in fact, trying to attack REAL science by advocating falsehoods that stand against the often overwhelming majority of scientific evidence. Not always the case, of course, but that's generally the most widespread definition in America today.
posted by Damn That Television at 11:43 PM on July 1, 2009
Seconding Ben Goldacre and Bad Science. There is a book in addition to the pretty excellent blog and online discussions.
posted by theyexpectresults at 12:36 AM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by theyexpectresults at 12:36 AM on July 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Thirding Ben Goldacre's Bad Science, it covers all the points you're looking for (mostly in a medical science context).
posted by markturner at 1:30 AM on July 2, 2009
posted by markturner at 1:30 AM on July 2, 2009
There's a talk by Naomi Oreskes on youtube that is ostensibly about global warming, but goes into the history of organised denialism on GW, cigarette smoke etc. and is a good primer on whose fingerprints to look for.(detailed denialism stuff starts about 28min in).
posted by Jakey at 5:06 AM on July 2, 2009
posted by Jakey at 5:06 AM on July 2, 2009
nthing Ben Goldacre's Bad Science. Beautifully funny/serious/scary
posted by lamby at 7:18 AM on July 2, 2009
posted by lamby at 7:18 AM on July 2, 2009
Be aware that the term "junk science" is actually a political axe. One of the tactics used by companies that want to do harmful things is to label everything that disagrees with them "junk science" and everything that agrees with them "sound science", and there are plenty of politicians who are more than willing to follow suit. A book that really opened my eyes about this subject was Doubt is Their Product by David Michaels, which is a good book about your original question too. Dry but information-packed.
posted by jacobm at 8:05 AM on July 2, 2009
posted by jacobm at 8:05 AM on July 2, 2009
The thing about junkscience.com is that it's an ugly kind of disinformation campaign funded by powerful industries seeking to cast mud on inconvenient but generally real science. As such the junk science is usually the science it advocates as sound or as good common sense (There is no link between smoking and cancer! Global Warming is a lie!) and which stands in contrast to the pinko hippy anti-american "junk science" which tends to be legitimate peer-reviewed science that just so happens to have come to a conclusion that a company with deep pockets would prefer that people didn't know.
It might be better to avoid the term "junk science" and go with something like "bad science" because if you use "junk science", a lot of people won't know if you're another nutball attacking real science or if you're focusing on genuinely bad science.
posted by -harlequin- at 10:48 AM on July 2, 2009
It might be better to avoid the term "junk science" and go with something like "bad science" because if you use "junk science", a lot of people won't know if you're another nutball attacking real science or if you're focusing on genuinely bad science.
posted by -harlequin- at 10:48 AM on July 2, 2009
For medical related Junk Science (especially issues related to Homeopathy and Anti-Immunization zealots) there's a good blog: Respectful Insolence.
posted by crenquis at 11:45 AM on July 2, 2009
posted by crenquis at 11:45 AM on July 2, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
Flim-flam! by James Randi
Science, good, bad, and bogus by Martin Gardner
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:48 PM on July 1, 2009