What Can We Do About Junk Science?
As skewed or phony studies about vaccines, GMOs, radiation, and other hot-button topics show up in journals that masquerade as legitimate science publications, junk science becomes harder to distinguish from real research.
The Mangano and Sherman paper is a prime example of a troubling new trend in which junk science is becoming harder to distinguish from rigorous research. It is an example of activists using the trappings of science to influence public opinion and policy. Today there are cottage industries that produce and disseminate skewed research in publications that masquerade as legitimate science journals. Celebrities and mainstream media outlets then tout the results, so that even retracted or clearly biased research can reach larger audiences than ever before.
jim hardy said:Thanks for that link.
people of the lie - the woods are full of them.
Greg Bernhardt said:Agreed! The issue of junk science gaining traction via social media and celebs is extremely troubling.
Unfortunately, when it comes to science, there is no "BS-vetting process" for most people, news organizations, political organizations, etc.SpunkyMonkey said:As well, the video cited shows how a local California ABC TV station was duped by a bogus "study" Mangano had published by a vanity publisher. So even folks who should be higher up in the BS-vetting process get duped into spreading junk-science memes.
"Anti-nuclear Fukushima Pseudoscience" refers to false or misleading claims about the Fukushima nuclear disaster that are not based on scientific evidence. These claims often promote fear and misinformation about the safety of nuclear energy and downplay the actual risks and consequences of the disaster.
Legitimate scientific information is based on peer-reviewed research and follows the scientific method, while pseudoscience often relies on anecdotal evidence or false logic. It is important to critically evaluate sources and look for evidence and data to support claims before accepting them as true.
No, there is no credible scientific evidence to support the claims made by anti-nuclear Fukushima pseudoscience proponents. In fact, numerous studies have debunked these claims and reaffirmed the safety of nuclear energy when properly regulated and managed.
Believing in anti-nuclear Fukushima pseudoscience can lead to unnecessary fear and panic, which can hinder progress towards finding solutions and addressing the actual risks and issues surrounding the Fukushima disaster. It can also perpetuate false information and prevent people from making informed decisions about energy sources.
We can combat anti-nuclear Fukushima pseudoscience by promoting and supporting scientific literacy and critical thinking skills. It is also important to fact-check information and sources before sharing them, and to actively challenge and correct misinformation when encountered. Additionally, supporting and advocating for evidence-based research and policies can help combat the spread of pseudoscience.