垃圾科学

维基百科,自由的百科全书
跳转至: 导航搜索
Confusion grey.svg
提示:本条目的主题不是伪科学边缘科学垃圾学

垃圾科学英语:Junk Science)是人们用来描述那些自己认为是虚假的科学数据研究、分析等。由于在政治、法律场合之中,一些科学成果时常能对结果产生重大影响,“垃圾科学”这一词汇常常在这种场合下使用。该词带有贬义色彩,暗示该项科学研究是出于政治、意识形态、经济等非科学目的而进行的。

这一概念因民事法律纠纷中的专家证言英语expert testimony环节而在1990年代流行起来。最近,这一词汇也被用来批评某些公司出于自身目的而进行的环保公共卫生相关危害性研究(有时也用来反击这些批评)。

在某些语境下,“垃圾科学”也指的是任何与讲话者本人所认定的“真科学”(sound science)相左的科学研究。[1]

历史[编辑]

“垃圾科学”一词在1985年之前就已经有人在用了——一份美国司法部1985年的报告称:

不正当科学证据(一般称“垃圾科学”)已经导致一部分科学研究无法被当今科学、医药界共识所认可。[原文 1][2]

1989年,气候学家杰瑞·马尔曼英语Jerry Mahlman将“全球变暖是由于太陽週期活动造成”的观点批判为“喧嚣的垃圾科学”(noisy junk science)。[3]

注解[编辑]

  1. ^ 原文:The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

参考资料[编辑]

  1. ^ Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005,. 95 Suppl 1: S81–91. PMID 16030344. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. 
  2. ^ "Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability" (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) p.39:

    Another way in which causation often is undermined — also an increasingly serious problem in toxic tort cases — is the reliance by judges and juries on non-credible scientific or medical testimony, studies or opinions. It has become all too common for 'experts' or 'studies' on the fringes of or even well beyond the outer parameters of mainstream scientific or medical views to be presented to juries as valid evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific and medical knowledge. Most importantly, this development has led to a deep and growing cynicism about the ability of tort law to deal with difficult scientific and medical concepts in a principled and rational way.

  3. ^ Roberts, L. Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science. 1989, 246 (4933): 992–993. PMID 17806372. doi:10.1126/science.246.4933.992.