It will go down in history as a textbook example
of bad science combined with bad politics.
I and other science bloggers spend a lot of time and virtual ink doing damage control
on bad science reporting in the media.
Every year, it's easy to come up with a long list of the year's
worst science fiction and fantasy movies.
I believe that the premise for the book was nothing about insulin, but
about bad science.
I did get attacks from the climate scientists, publicly and privately, stating that their opponents were bad people
doing bad science and that they should be kept from publishing.
Not even from the personal perspective of how to eat just from the fascinating perspective of
how bad the science was and how there was this obvious alternative hypothesis.
To pretend otherwise is not
only bad science, it can be risky for the sexual health of men and women everywhere.
The open society and free market make scientists compete a bit, which creates a way of
exposing bad science influenced by bias.
He is here to teach you how to evaluate placebo effects, double - blind studies, and sample sizes, so that you can recognize
bad science when you see it.
While the story had a serious political bent, this movie threw that aside for
insanely bad science and some weak attempts at action.
Free speech and a free press are supposed to counter following based
upon bad science.
I am a registered dietitian and I believe you shouldn't make remarks based
on bad science.
Can't remember where I read that, and I hope it's
just bad science or reporting.
It just looks like
very bad science to me, so I assume there must be some explanation.
Most likely such a mental frame - work underlying the selection against negative in favor of positive ones will not only require a structural change, but also a mental or psychological one, including better training of editors to recognize the importance of negative results, and to distinguish negative results
from bad science.