
Science Errors & Conflicts
Get flash to fully experience Pearltrees
The Crisis of Big Science by Steven Weinberg
Is 'Big Science' In Trouble? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture
A Result Of Zero Doesn't Always Mean Zero Results
Two recent astrophysics studies found meaningful results in nothing By Nadia Drake Web edition: April 26, 2012 Forlorn graduate students sometimes turn to a publication called The Journal of Negative Results .* In graduate student mythology, it’s the repository for toiled-over experiments that produced nothing — no effects, no detections, no differences, nothing . (*This actually does exist for specific disciplines.Leaks, hacks and science - science-in-society - 06 December 2011
Science in the Telegraph and the Daily Mail: What’s wrong with British journalism?
Read full article Continue reading page | 1 | 2 For a few hours last week, I had planned to write a column about the " five-second rule ."
Dodgy tales of 'research' swirling the globe - opinion - 31 May 2012
Science Denial In The 21st Century
Web edition : Tuesday, April 24th, 2012 Text Size MADISON, Wis. — The arc of science has faced roadblocks for centuries, but the pattern of denying the weight of evidence has taken on new virulence recently. Highly motivated people openly cast doubt on well-established evidence — the theory of evolution, the human effects on climate change, the value of vaccines and other findings that have achieved an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community. Researchers and science writers tasked with reporting on these issues gathered April 23–24 at the University of Wisconsin at a meeting titled “Science Writing in the Age of Denial.” Some noted that seemingly spontaneous denial of science in the populace is quite often a carefully choreographed attack.When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’
The Financially Driven Erosion of Scientific Integrity
What does it mean to say that something causes 16% of cancers? | Not Exactly Rocket Science
Image: Illustration by Alex Robbins Climate deniers are accused of practicing pseudoscience, as are intelligent design creationists, astrologers, UFOlogists, parapsychologists, practitioners of alternative medicine , and often anyone who strays far from the scientific mainstream. The boundary problem between science and pseudoscience, in fact, is notoriously fraught with definitional disagreements because the categories are too broad and fuzzy on the edges, and the term “pseudoscience” is subject to adjectival abuse against any claim one happens to dislike for any reason. In his 2010 book Nonsense on Stilts (University of Chicago Press), philosopher of science Massimo Pigliucci concedes that there is “no litmus test,” because “the boundaries separating science, nonscience, and pseudoscience are much fuzzier and more permeable than Popper (or, for that matter, most scientists) would have us believe.”
What Is Pseudoscience?
The Allure of Gay Cavemen | The Primate Diaries
Third genders, two spirits, and a media without a clue. Author’s Note: Earlier this month the UK Daily Mail reported on continued excavation at an archaeological site near Prague where researchers described an individual with an alternative gender identity. The following post originally appeared at Neuron Culture hosted by Wired after the original report last year. "Cave Painting" by Nathaniel Gold In 1993 the reputable German weekly Der Spiegel printed a rumor that Otzi, the 5,300-year-old frozen mummy discovered in the Otztal Alps two years earlier, contained evidence of the world’s earliest known homosexual act. “In Otzi’s Hintern,” wrote the editors, referring to the Iceman’s hinterland, “Spermien gefunden worden.”Geology will survive creationist undermining - opinion - 11 October 2011
Creationist infiltration of scientific conferences seems outrageous, but banning them would do more harm than good WHAT should a scientific society do when creationists want to participate in its conferences? This question faces many scientific organisations in the US. At meetings of the Geological Society of America (GSA) in 2009 and 2010, young-Earth creationists, who think Noah's flood was a historical event and the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, presented posters, gave talks and led field trips. I attended a number of these events, and I can attest that the creationists were careful to give mainstream presentations using standard geologic methods.There’s scientific knowledge. There are the dedicated scientists who make it, whether laboring in laboratories or in the fields, fretting over data analysis, refereeing each other’s manuscripts or second-guessing themselves. And, well, there are some crackpots. I’m not talking dancing-on-the-edge-of-the-paradigm folks, nor cheaters who seem to be on a quest for fame or profit. I mean the guy who has the wild idea for revolutionizing field X that actually is completely disconnected from reality.

