The expression junk science is used to describe scientific
The concept was popularized in the 1990s in relation to
In some contexts, junk science is counterposed to the "sound science" or "solid science" that favors one's own point of view. This dichotomy has been particularly promoted by Steven Milloy and the
The phrase junk science appears to have been in use prior to 1985. A 1985
The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.
In 1989, the climate scientist
An example of 'junk science' that should be excluded under the
Daubert standardas too unreliable would be the testimony of a phrenologistwho would purport to prove a defendant's future dangerousness based on the contours of the defendant's skull.
Lower courts have subsequently set guidelines for identifying junk science, such as the 2005 opinion of
Positive reports about magnetic water treatment are not replicable; this plus the lack of a physical explanation for any effects are hallmarks of junk science.
As the subtitle of Huber's book, Junk Science in the Courtroom, suggests, his emphasis was on the use or misuse of expert testimony in civil litigation. One prominent example cited in the book was litigation over casual contact in the spread of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changereports offer an antidote to junk science by articulating the current consensus on the prospects for climate change, by outlining the extent of the uncertainties, and by describing the potential benefits and costs of policies to address climate change.
In a 2003 study about changes in environmental activism regarding the
In his 2006 book Junk Science,[
As far as understanding junk science is concerned, the important aspect is that both Bell Laboratories and the international physics community were fooled until someone noticed that noise records published by
Jan Hendrik Schönin several papers were identical—which means physically impossible.
In the second case, he cites an example that demonstrates ignorance of statistical principles in the lay press:
Since no such proof is possible [that
genetically modified foodis harmless], the article in The New York Times was what is called a "bad rap" against the U.S. Department of Agriculture—a bad rap based on a junk-science belief that it's possible to prove a null hypothesis.
Agin asks the reader to step back from the rhetoric, as "how things are labeled does not make a science junk science." In its place, he offers that junk science is ultimately motivated by the desire to hide undesirable truths from the public.