“Junk science” is a term used to describe scientific conclusions based on false information or faulty assumptions. Junk science is often used by politicians, pundits, and other supposed “experts” to persuade gullible members of the public to adopt or support a belief based in junk science.
Junk science claims are often controversial. One person’s junk science may be another person’s heartfelt belief. The tobacco industry, for example, pins the “junk science” label on evidence that exposure to secondhand cigarette smoke is harmful. Critics of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth call Gore’s observations of global climate change “junk science.” President Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars defense program has been dismissed as junk science by most physicists. A closer look at junk science shows that scientific conclusions are no substitute for critical thinking and careful analysis.
Origins of junk science
Author Dan Agin literally wrote the book on Junk Science. He defines the phenomenon as “corrupted science” – conclusions that have been corrupted either intentionally or unintentionally by careless procedures or ignorance. Agin traces a collective heightened interest in science to the late 1950s, after the use of nuclear weapons made it clear that science could change a person’s life forever, whether the person knew anything about science or not. The public developed a fascination with all things scientific thereafter, and junk science ensued.
Junk science and words
Sometimes junk science can be discerned by careful reading of a claim. For example, in the book “How to Lie with Statistics,” by Darrell Huff, Huff cites a study on the effectiveness of antihistamine medication on the common cold. The study concluded that a “considerable percentage of colds cleared up after treatment.”
The drug companies marketed the finding to the public, which bought more antihistamines and, Huff notes, seemed to have forgotten the famous saying by humorist Henry G. Felson: “Proper treatment will cure a cold in seven days, but left to itself a cold will hang on for a week.” Of course some colds cleared up with treatment – so did the colds that went untreated.
With the antihistamine study, consumers could have used critical thinking to figure out what the study really meant. No doubt many consumers noticed that the claim was meaningless and made an more informed decision of whether or not to use antihistamines the next time they caught a cold.
Junk science and statistics
Junk science is often based on statistics presented out of context. In a toothpaste ad, consumers are told that ninety-nine percent of dentists surveyed preferred Brand X toothpaste. Consumers are not told what other choices for treatment appeared on the survey. If the dentists were asked whether they would prefer cleaning the teeth with Brand X over cleaning the teeth with ginger root dipped in sugar, one has to ask what the other one percent of dentists were thinking.
An accusation that scientific conclusions are junk science are not evidence that the conclusions are actually faulty. Individuals should read scientific claims with care and use their critical thinking skills to evaluate whether scientific conclusions are worthy of belief, based on sound evidence.
Sources:
Agin, Dan: Junk Science (2006)
Huff, Darrell: How to Lie with Statistics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science
