Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:56 AM
23 online now:
PaulK, Percy (Admin), RAZD, Tangle, vimesey (5 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,819 Year: 4,856/19,786 Month: 978/873 Week: 334/376 Day: 11/116 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Bad Science
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005

Message 1 of 2 (227201)
07-28-2005 9:13 PM

The Guardian on Thursday has a column called 'Bad Science'. It tries to highlight science and the comments/quotes/claims made by people that are supposedly scientific, but are misplaced/wrong and in some examples downright misleading. The aim of the column is to highlight claims made by many (reputable) people that are unsupported by scientific fact, despite their supposed scientific credentials and despite their context.

They are currently running a thread that invites people to write in with their best stories of scientific flim-flam. That is, stories of people who talk a good game scientifically, but who talk the universal language of garbage in the name of scientific discussion, or talk as though science is as much up for discussion as philosophy.

The question up for topic is , what is the best unscientific scientific explanation of anything that you have heard? Or what is the best unscientific explanation of science?

A few examples:

"Not everything is scientific."

"Logic isn't real, you can prove anything with logic. It's meaningless."

and the prime example:
"the discussion was flawed because it was based on logic."

Hopefully I have recovered from my overactive sarcasm gland and it will not happen again. By the way the aim is not to highlight people who purposely use science and scientific jargon for nefarious means but people who genuinely believe what they are saying.

Moved here by AdminJar

This message has been edited by AdminJar, 07-28-2005 08:14 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by bobbins, posted 07-28-2005 9:24 PM bobbins has not yet responded

Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005

Message 2 of 2 (227204)
07-28-2005 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bobbins
07-28-2005 9:13 PM

cheers Jar
Sorry if I came across as snotty in my reply to your closing the topic for 24 hours but I have considered proposing this for a couple of weeks.

I have another couple of quotes from todays column, to start people off:

"Science will never unravel the basic structure of the universe because when we think about the subatomic particles it affects the way they behave" - an ingenious combination of the Uncertainty principle and ESP.

"..copper bracelets work by creating energy, just like petrol creates the energy needed to drive a car." - who needs Kyoto!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bobbins, posted 07-28-2005 9:13 PM bobbins has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019