Slashdot Mirror
Bad Science Awards
KDan writes "The Bad Science Awards are out. These should put a smile on any science geek's face. Prize gems include: shrinking water molecules, anesthetic condoms, and a plan to send homeopathic AIDS remedies to Botswana."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I think the David Hasselhoff ipod should have made the list too!!!
;-D
What else is missing?
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
do you mean this?
I find that the evidence for human-caused global warming is lacking, yet consensus science tends to be used to support it.
Worse yet, when someone suggests that the current global warming may be due to non-human causes, that person tends to be rediculed, attacked, or called a pawn of big industry.
Yet we don't know the natural global warming trends of the earth. We don't know how much sunlight earth received in the past, and how much it is receiving now. We don't know what the average amount of natural CO2 released is. We don't understand fluctuations in atmospheric composition. We can't even predict the weather a month down the road. In short, we don't understand what humans are doing to the environment, and how much is being effected.
Yet human caused global warming is popular because it can be used to support reform to protect the environment.
I'm all for less pollution, less waste, more recycling, and more efficiency, but lets be honest: We don't need to promote an unproven idea in order to support environmental reforms.
Just my $.02
How about all those people insisting evolution be taught in school, as it also "is not a scientific theory". It while having predictive power has no practical predictions you can make, Offers no true explanation for existence, nor can it be tested. Therefore I hereby nominate Evolution to be put in the philosophy religion and/or sociology class. * note: I speak here about Macro not Micro evolution, which is a fundamentally different process. Macro evolution in the biological sense requires introducing new information and complexity into the system. Micro evolution involves losing information or complexity in the system. eg. wolves, german shephards and chihuaha's are an example of micro evolution. They all exist because certain "traits" or genetic information were bred out of them. A LOSS of information. Macro evolution is going from single cell single strand of DNA to multicellular multistrand dna forms. The Addition of information. Micro is provable Macro is not.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
Why not throw out THEORY that is not provable in all science classes?
You forget that one theory is not better than another if both cannot be tested. Yours is just as untestable as the creationists. But somehow I don't think that is the point you are trying to make. You like your brand of faith better than the alternatives.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Yeah, like phrenology, statistics and other nukular sciences
"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."
the problem i have with creationism is that it offers no scientific explanation. "how did the world begin?" "God made it." doesn't answer any question.
Well, to be fair, we must admit that the Big Bang does nothing more than that.
It says a lot, because it doesn't say "The Universe was formed" but rather "The Unvierse was formed in this specific way, this is the timeline, etc."
I hope you see the difference.
Nope. I don't. One says the universe was formed by God, about 6,000 years ago. The other says the universe exploded into existence anywhere from 5 to 20 billion years ago.
They look pretty much the same to me.... On the one hand you can say, "but who made God?" and on the other hand you can say, "but who made the dense matter blob that exploded?"
Shame you posted anonymously.