Interesting People mailing list archives
more on nd of thread Junk Science Awards...
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 05:50:47 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Allan A Friedman <allan () sccs swarthmore edu> Date: December 7, 2004 9:44:27 PM EST To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Subject: Re: [IP] Junk Science Awards... Reply-To: allan () friedmans org Dave, I feel compelled to note that most of the studies Milloy sites have rebutted his criticism, or noted that his attacks are slightly less than honest. While I agree with a few of his points, I do find it a trifle annoying that some one who uses "science" in such a blatantly partisan manner tries to couch it in his rhetoric. A cursory search reveals that there are many people who are not terribly fond of "junk science": http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/junkscience.html But while we're on the topic of using good science to refuteless-than-perfect methods, the Berkeley evoting paper was recently rather
bluntly rebutted. A quote from Professors McCullough and Plassmann:"As professors who teach statistics and econometrics to undergraduate and graduate students, we are always on the lookout for good examples of .what not to do. so that we may better instruct our students in the responsible
use of statistics. Therefore we have examined the HMCB study with acritical eye. We conclude that the study is entirely without merit and its
"results" are meaningless." I don't think they had to use that tone, but I do think that checking one's model is a good idea before calling a press conference. http://election04.ssrc.org/research/critique-of-hmcb.pdf /\llan Allan Friedman PhD Student, Public Policy Kennedy School of Government
Begin forwarded message: From: Jim Warren <jwarren () well com> Date: December 7, 2004 5:19:23 PM EST To: Dave Farber:; Subject: fwd: Junk Science Awards... http://www.junkscience.com/dec04/junkscienceawards2004.htm WASHINGTON, D.C., (Dec. 1) -- JunkScience.com today announced its list of the Top Ten Most Embarrassing Moments in Health and Environmental Science for 2004. The list spotlights individuals and organizations that -- through exaggerated claims, bad judgment, and/or hidden agendas -- have most egregiously undermined public confidence in the scientific community's capacity to conduct sound and unbiased research.
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- more on nd of thread Junk Science Awards... David Farber (Dec 08)