垃圾科學

維基百科,自由的百科全書
跳至導覽 跳至搜尋
Confusion grey.svg
提示:本條目的主題不是偽科學邊緣科學垃圾學

垃圾科學英語:Junk Science)是人們用來描述那些自己認為是虛假的科學數據研究、分析等。由於在政治、法律場合之中,一些科學成果時常能對結果產生重大影響,「垃圾科學」這一詞彙常常在這種場合下使用。該詞帶有貶義色彩,暗示該項科學研究是出於政治、意識形態、經濟等非科學目的而進行的。

這一概念因民事法律糾紛中的專家證言英語expert testimony環節而在1990年代流行起來。最近,這一詞彙也被用來批評某些公司出於自身目的而進行的環保公共衛生相關危害性研究(有時也用來反擊這些批評)。

在某些語境下,「垃圾科學」也指的是任何與講話者本人所認定的「真科學」(sound science)相左的科學研究。[1]

歷史[編輯]

「垃圾科學」一詞在1985年之前就已經有人在用了——一份美國司法部1985年的報告稱:

不正當科學證據(一般稱「垃圾科學」)已經導致一部分科學研究無法被當今科學、醫藥界共識所認可。[原文 1][2]

1989年,氣候學家傑瑞·馬爾曼英語Jerry Mahlman將「全球變暖是由於太陽週期活動造成」的觀點批判為「喧囂的垃圾科學」(noisy junk science)。[3]

註解[編輯]

  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.

參考資料[編輯]

  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.