[IP] more on nd of thread Junk Science Awards...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Allan A Friedman <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: December 7, 2004 9:44:27 PM EST
To: David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] Junk Science Awards...
Reply-To: allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxx>
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 roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/