[IP] more on nd of thread Junk Science Awards...

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

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 refute
less-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 a
critical 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.

-------------------------------------
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/