4 ms·
Please, don't call it "bad science". Science was never meant to happen here, this is just plain exercise in dishonesty. "Bad science" is a real thing which ha
by lmilcin 6y ago
Please, don't call it "bad science".
Science was never meant to happen here, this is just plain exercise in dishonesty.
"Bad science" is a real thing which happens when somebody tries to "do science" but fails.
- kingosticks 6y agoThere's a book and UK newspaper column series called "bad science". It's not about people with good intentions failing. > Ben Goldacre’s wise and witty bestseller, shortlisted for the Samuel Johnson Prize, lifts the lid on quack doctors, flaky statistics, scaremongering journalists and evil pharmaceutical corporations. > Full spleen and satire, Ben Goldacre takes us on a hilarious, invigorating and ultimately alarming journey through the bad science we are fed daily by hacks and quacks.
- lmilcin 6y agoFor any given term there is always somebody that will misuse it. Just because a book was written or somebody publishes article is not a proof. I find it useful to have separate terms for when somebody is incompetent (bad science) and when somebody intentionally misleads (quackery).
- kingosticks 6y agoSure, I didn't mean to imply it was proof one way or the other, just that it's not a universal thing. I've actually never heard the term "quackery" but I do like it.
- inimino 6y agoThere's also "pseudoscience". Unfortunately all too common in ML, where the ratio of published papers to genuine new developments is (charitably) at least 2:1.