Hey! Im taking a class right now and I need to find an article on that uses bad science to back it up. please help me.I have been searching for what seems like forever. I was hoping someone might have come across one or know where I could find one.

Thanks

http://www.badscience.net/

I made it there, but I need the original article, not what he says about it.

Bad science to back up a point, or examples of bad reporting of science?

 

If it's the latter,

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html

my critique and a link to more:

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4852

 

You can find some more examples here:

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/category/journalism

 

(They aren't all examples of bad science reporting, but "bad science" articles are listed with that tag)

 

If it's the former, they would be listed under antiscience

 

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/category/antiscience

 

 

Almost any anti-global warming popular article wills suffice, e.g.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021903046.html

 

and my responses to some of the points

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4894

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/4942

Edited April 15, 201015 yr by swansont

You can look up pseudo science topics like Radionics and perpetual motion machines.

It needs to be bad science to back up a point.

The research funded by tobacco companies might be a good place to look.

http://www.edubook.com/is-there-scientific-proof-for-life-after-death/9849/

 

is this good or bad science? thanks