# What do we think is real science but is really junk science? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [May 26, 2002, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918 "2002-05-26T15:33:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/21 "2002-05-28T19:57:14Z")
There are two broad parts of science - coming up with the hypotheses, and testing them. So long as the people studying global warming, who aren’t rigorously testing their hypotheses, acknowledge that they are still formulating hypotheses, and don’t pretend that their hypotheses are yet established fact, it’s not junk science. Isn’t the question of whether global warming exists, and if it does, at what rate it will warm, a question worth asking? ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2002, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/22 "2002-05-28T19:58:44Z")
Oh, and to un-hijack the thread: Multiple Personality Disorder. Repressed Memory Syndrome. ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2002, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/23 "2002-05-28T23:50:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by GuanoLad \* > \*\*Meteorology. > > I mean, come on. A hundred years of detailed analysis, computer power up the wazoo, satellites, physics, logic, and observation… and they still don’t get any more reliable than “might rain today, but we could be wrong”.\*\* Yeah, that whole “lives routinely saved due to advance warning of floods, tornados and hurricanes” thing is such an unscientific waste of time and effort. I miss the old days before all this pseudoscientific meteorology mumbo-jumbo, like that time in Galveston in 1900 where 8000 people died in a hurricane because they had no advance warning. That was great! -fh ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2002, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/24 "2002-05-29T05:28:20Z")
Oh pooh. There are exceptions to everything, but clearly I was talking about five day forecasts, not predictions of wholesale disaster. ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2002, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/25 "2002-05-29T05:29:40Z")
What about ADD and ADHD. I think recent evidence is still either way as to if they are real or not. A whole lot of pop psychology like the “mozart effect” comes to mind. And… the big whopper which I can believe nobody has mentined yet… Creation Science (sic) ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2002, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/26 "2002-05-29T05:41:06Z")
Polygraph (as mentioned). Hair analysis. ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2002, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/27 "2002-05-29T07:51:52Z")
> [@](#): > > Oh pooh. There are exceptions to everything, but clearly I was talking about five day forecasts, not predictions of wholesale disaster. When you finish backpedalling, maybe you’d like to enlighten me on how meteorology is in any way junk science. -fh ---
**Author:** ![Gatopescado](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gatopescado/32/5711_2.png) [@Gatopescado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gatopescado)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2002, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/28 "2002-05-29T22:27:22Z")
someday, someone will finally realize the earth really is flat…😃 (and don’t give me that “photos from space” crap either! if you hold a quarter on edge, it looks round, too!) ---
**Author:** ![heresiarch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@heresiarch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heresiarch)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2002, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/29 "2002-05-30T02:26:19Z")
Saying that meteorology is not a science because forecasts are bad is like saying that medicine is not a science because patients die. Chaos theory was discovered by a meteorologist. Chaos theory says that, for some systems, even if you start with a near-perfect knowledge of initial conditions, you can’t predict the future state of the system beyond a certain period of time. And, for the record, I think forecasters do a better job than most people think they do. But I’m biased. ---
**Author:** ![Shagnasty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9dc877/32.png) [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2002, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/30 "2002-05-30T02:41:20Z")
Nobody is claiming that meteorologists do not use real science and the best tools available to make near-term predictions. If they tell me that it will probbaly rain tomorrow, I will pack an umbrella and they will most likely be right. If they are not right, I chalk this up to chance or chaos theory. I also know to listen when they tell me that chances are good for thunderstorms and tornadoes to develop on a given night. They can tell much better than I ever could based on radar images of storms moving into the area. However, they do frequently overstep the limits of their science due to popular demand. Television meteorologists are asked to make season-long predictions such as “the coming summer should be hotter and drier than usual based on X”. The fact of the matter is that no one can predict weather more a week out. The hurricane season forecast is a good example. It has the same chance as the roll of the die of being anywhere near correct but meteorologists are still forced to predict it every year and have it broadcast as if it were gospel. The Farmer’s Almanac has been doing the same thing for over 100 years with about the same accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2002, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/31 "2002-05-30T02:50:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shalmanese \* > **What about ADD and ADHD. I think recent evidence is still either way as to if they are real or not.** Do a quick search in GQ and the pit, and you’ll probably be convinced that this statement isn’t quite true. \*\* > [@](#): > > Creation Science (sic) \*\* Well, WE don’t think it’s real science…😉 I dunno about psychology and psychiatry…They may have been a good start, but the emerging field of cognitive science will probably put them both away. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2002, 3:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/32 "2002-05-31T03:04:36Z")
Golly, there are some defensive weather-o-philes here. I was just being silly, I wasn’t seriously suggesting meteorology was really junk science, only that in the eyes of the ordinary man such as myself, it appears as though there’s been no progress made despite technology improving. Sorry to get your ganders up, folks. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2002, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/33 "2002-05-31T18:37:57Z")
While I appreciate tornado, hurricane and other event warnings and I see great progress recently in _climate_ prediction due to understanding El Nino and such, I think there are fundamental scientific questions about _weather_ prediction. It was supposed to rain here yesterday. It didn’t, not even close. I held off watering my garden now I have to wait until Sat. (watering restrictions) and then the pressure will be low. There is something fundamentally wrong when people are making 5-10 day forecasts but are frequently wrong on 12 hour forecasts. I know of no other field where such gulfs in prediction vs. reality exist. I remember getting chewed out in college over leaving too many significant digits in my answers. Weather forecasts should include an error range. If the error range swamps the data, no prediction should be given at all. This is how Science is done. Why should weather forecasting be excluded? ---
**Author:** ![ianzin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/ed655f/32.png) [@ianzin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ianzin)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2002, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/34 "2002-05-31T22:32:22Z")
Psycho-analysis and therapy. Woody Allen is the product of something that _works_ ? Juror selection. The perfect pseudo-science! Since there can never be a control group, it can never be assessed! Womens’ clothing sizes. Like they mean anything any more. Theology. Discussing whether the black cat that isn’t there in the black room that isn’t there either wants us to eat fish on Fridays. Stock market forecasting (tossing dice, chimpanzees, dart boards… they’ve all proved just as accurate). Graphology. BTW, **Baraqiyal** , handwriting analysis is a valid science. It uses forensic techniques to determine if two samples of handwriting came from the same person. Graphology is just cold reading applied to handwriting. Many get the two confused… ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2002, 8:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918/35 "2002-06-05T08:24:22Z")
## – Stock market forecasting (tossing dice, chimpanzees, dart boards… they’ve all proved just as accurate). There are actually several good AI programs which are VERY good at modelling very specific areas of the stock market and making predictions. unfortunatly, the limitation of these AI is that they are forced to disregard their own actions when making predictions so they can neer make incredibly huge sums of money, [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-do-we-think-is-real-science-but-is-really-junk-science/110918.md?page=1)