How to detect baloney...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3qLv-l0Cwc

How to detect baloney...

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=h3qLv-l0Cwc

 

Interesting, but also a bit shallow.

 

He does not even touch upon the fact that there is quite a bit of pseudoscience that masquerades as real science and even supposedly "real scientists" are to be viewed skeptically, Michu Kaku leaps immediately to mind.

 

One ought to demand not only "credibility" but in fact hard data and actual analysis from sources that one might ultimately accept.

 

Moreover, one ought to be skeptical of classifications and labels and understand what they really mean. It is quite possible to use categorization of causes and effects to slant a conclusion towards a political bias without actually violating any basic scientific principles -- beware of the use of statistics and know what the statistics really means.

 

He does not even touch upon the fact that there is quite a bit of pseudoscience that masquerades as real science and even supposedly "real scientists" are to be viewed skeptically, Michu Kaku leaps immediately to mind.

 

 

 

 

Kary Mullis and Peter Duesberg are another two I would add to that list. Also, this guy, whose most recent paper is rather eloquently summed up by this article from Ars Technica.

Nice article at Ars Technica - and a great comment

My theory is that this is actually a Liberal Arts plot for revenge for the Sokal Affair.

Why this Forum doesn't publish a list of known "not real scientists" ?

Evolution has given us a predisposition for false positives (as often a false negative could kill and eat you)

 

We are essentially pattern recognition machines, we should not be surprised that people believe all sorts of crap

There is already an adequate counter-point to the Sokal affair.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_brothers

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/bogdanoff/