Comments on: Junk Science Warning Signs: Part I

By: EnlightenedDuck

EnlightenedDuck — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:15:29 +0000

Just read post II in the series, and you addressed my main concern. Thanks!

For those not noting dates, post II pre-dates my comment:)

By: EnlightenedDuck

EnlightenedDuck — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 21:09:33 +0000

I have a nit to pick with your proclamation about Impact Factors of at least 3 being indicative of good journals. The cut-off varies from field to field. Since Impact Factor only takes into account citations of recent publications, fields with longer review times have depressed Impact Factors.

In statistics, and Impact Factor above 1 usually denotes a journal worth publishing in. This is both a problem and a reality of the field.

Having said that, I won’t argue with your suggestion of 3 as a general guide, though in medicine that is pretty low…

By: Tatyana

Tatyana — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:40:19 +0000

I’m pressed for time, so I’ll have to postpone finishing this very interesting post (I’m at approx. 1/3 of it) for later. Don’t know, maybe you addressed my note later in the essay, in this case – disregard it, but I have to add this. Often it is not only difficult for a layman to compare and contrast different scientific theories to form his own opinion, it is unprofitable. If someone’s business or political interests (especially if directly connected) would benefit from agreeing with one side of the dispute, he’s more likely to believe the Ph.Ds and Nobels on that side. I am still thinking my former boss: the clients of his business are mostly government agencies, he’s dependent on personal approval of various bureaucrats for getting into bids for jobs. So he supports every piece of stupid regulation (besides being, personally, the most controlling lefty Democrat I’ve seen in architectural offices), including the “green policies”, connected to officially approved Goracle’s nonsense of global warming.
Gotta go now, I’ll return to this later.

Shannon: you forgot your mad millworking skillz, in addn’ to mathmatics.

By: Shannon Love

Shannon Love — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:03:42 +0000

My own scientific knowledge is like the Platt river, a mile wide and foot deep. Most of mathematical skills have atrophied from misuse. Yet, a lot people, even well educated people are very impressed by my wide but shallow knowledge base. I’ve found that if you know something that a group of peers does not know, the people in that group tend to believe you are very smart. Even if you have only pointed them toward a gloss of an answer.

I think it is very easy to convince laypeople that you understand something which you do not, especially if you have some credentials, no matter how shallow, after your name.