Bad Science

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

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!