what is science, bad science, junk science

[nec209]

On 9/12/2017 at 5:17 PM, Strange said:

This has nothing to do with science.

 

On 9/15/2017 at 7:37 PM, Strange said:

Eugenics.

Eugenics has nothing to do with science.

It has never been good science.

It has never been junk science.

It has nothing to do with science.

Sheesh.

One definition of art is "what an artist does".

The equivalent definition does not apply to science. Just because some scientists are religious, play the piano or think that doing evil things will improve the human species does not make religion, jazz or eugenics anything to do with science.

No. It doesn't say that. 

 

On 9/16/2017 at 5:51 PM, Strange said:

It tells me that it was a bunch of ignorant and bigoted politicians with no understanding or interesting in science.

There is no science behind it. You can keep pretending that there is, but it just makes you look foolish.

Okay I do what you ask because it off topic for that thread. Can you other here define what is science,  bad science,  junk science and pseudoscience.

What makes good science and what makes bad science?

To my understanding I always thought bad science or junk science did not have any science backing like saying you can walk on water,  earth has no center mass or time travel.

 

[Strange]

Science is a process for gaining information about the world in a rigorous, evidence-based way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I guess "bad science" could describe a lot of possible ways that people might depart from that. For instance by faking evidence, or ignoring evidence that disagrees with the hypothesis or using bad statistical methods.

Pseudoscience is something that tries to sound like science but doesn't pay any attention to the scientific method. Typically it uses a lot of "sciency" words but without really understanding them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

[Phi for All]

To use a limited analogy, human knowledge about our universe is like navigating a frozen lake. To cross it safely and surely, you need to walk where there's enough support to do so. If you test every step meticulously before making it to be sure the ice can hold the weight, you will find the best path, and others will be able to take that path as well. It takes more time, but the results are the most trustworthy they can be.

Bad science often makes leaps instead of testing the ice, hoping to land safely so it can look for its next leap. Conclusions based on these leaps can't be trusted, and others won't be able follow either. 

 

[CharonY]

23 hours ago, Strange said:

Science is a process for gaining information about the world in a rigorous, evidence-based way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I guess "bad science" could describe a lot of possible ways that people might depart from that. For instance by faking evidence, or ignoring evidence that disagrees with the hypothesis or using bad statistical methods.

Pseudoscience is something that tries to sound like science but doesn't pay any attention to the scientific method. Typically it uses a lot of "sciency" words but without really understanding them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Another aspect is taking scientific data, but extrapolate or misinterpret their meaning. This is usually the case when the offender is not trained to understand the scope and limitation of said data.

[Strange]

Related to that, those engaging in pseudo-science start out convinced that they are correct and will then cast around looking for bits of evidence that they can interpret as supporting their idea. (You will see this in most of the "Speculations" threads on this and similar forums.)

A scientific approach is to remain sceptical of the hypothesis, however attached to it you are, and evaluate all the evidence. If it turns out that this shows your idea to be wrong, then back to the drawing board.

[Ken Fabian]

Trying to find ways your hypothesis could be wrong, before you publish and have the errors pointed out, is a good way to avoid making a fool of yourself even if it sounds less noble than "I applied scientific scepticism to ensure the highest scientific standards" as motivation. Scientists are human too; that your peers will read, review and critique what you publish, and not hesitate to call out any mistakes is a cornerstone of science

[nec209]

On 9/19/2017 at 4:58 PM, Strange said:

Science is a process for gaining information about the world in a rigorous, evidence-based way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

I guess "bad science" could describe a lot of possible ways that people might depart from that. For instance by faking evidence, or ignoring evidence that disagrees with the hypothesis or using bad statistical methods.

Pseudoscience is something that tries to sound like science but doesn't pay any attention to the scientific method. Typically it uses a lot of "sciency" words but without really understanding them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

Okay so would you say eugenics is bad science or pseudoscience? What things do you agree and disagree on with it?

So if understand there is no science that supports breading of persons behavior, mood, morality,  moral values,  person character and person personality? So if understand genetics don't play apart when comes to persons behavior, mood, morality, moral values, person character and person personality?  And so in that case eugenics will not work.

 But genetics play apart when it comes to mental illness, mentally handicapped and mentally challenged so eugenics may work for mental illness, mentally handicapped and mentally challenged people but not persons behavior, mood, morality,  moral values,  person character and person personality?

[Strange]

8 hours ago, nec209 said:

Okay so would you say eugenics is bad science or pseudoscience?

To judge that, one would have to see the published science on eugenics. Is there any?

8 hours ago, nec209 said:

So if understand there is no science that supports breading of persons behavior, mood, morality,  moral values,  person character and person personality? So if understand genetics don't play apart when comes to persons behavior, mood, morality, moral values, person character and person personality?

I would not be surprised if there were a genetic component to those things. I'm not sure why you assume there isn't.

Quote

But genetics play apart when it comes to mental illness, mentally handicapped and mentally challenged so eugenics may work for mental illness, mentally handicapped and mentally challenged people but not persons behavior, mood, morality,  moral values,  person character and person personality?

Again, there may be a genetic component to those things. But that doesn't say anything about the validity of eugenics.