Talk:Bad Science

Cleanup
I feel that the page is more relevant for Wikipedia than Wikibooks. Well, it appears more like a advocacy of something and one-sided. It needs cleanup for sure.-Ravichandar My coffee shop 11:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an option, nor should it be. This is a book about examples of mis-reporting and mis-selling based on scientific, or apparently scientific, principles. It is written for teachers to use with their students to raise issues, explore the evidence and reach their own conclusions. If it's one-sided it's on the side of facts which can be, or have been, established; it's against people who deliberately, or through ignorance, mis-use science to write sensational stories, sell their product, etc.


 * What 'clean-up' do you think is necessary?


 * Ewen (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The newspaper item reproduced and the views expressed gave the impression that it was an advocacy of some kind. If it involves activities and workshops then well and fine :-)-Ravichandar My coffee shop 15:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I share the feeling that the current format seems to be WB:SOAP even if the argumentation is valid a rewrite to exclude (validate by references) personal affirmations or interpretations should be done, titles of sources if not validated in someway are meaningless in the Wiki context. There is a need to cover WB:NPOV problems. I was inclined to start a WB:VFD on the work not because of the content itself but because of the format it has. --Panic (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The 'personal affirmations' are all validated by references and/or logical argument, I feel. What examples do you think are problematic?


 * I'm not sure what you mean about 'titles of sources if not validated'? For example?


 * What's the problem with the format?


 * Ewen (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have rewritten the main page so to reduce some of the SOAP feeling. It should also contain some information explaining why media get it wrong (lack of credible participants, commentators; time constrains; target consumer lacking the basis to understand complex issues; false advertising; need for impact; etc...).
 * Try to invert the structure, center it on the real content and then relate it to the articles in place of starting on the articles (that most people don't know, may not be interested in), the articles shouldn't have such relevancy if the book is to be of any use, since they can't be included and there is no guarantee they will be available for reading in the long run. --Panic (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is "Bad Science" for the classroom this book project (you can request a rename) or is the book mimicking some already existing project?
 * If it is this project then mentioning the contributors as it is will quickly become futile as contributions on Wikibooks can't be restricted to a group. I'm referring to "created by Planet Science and Dr. Goldacre with the help of teachers" if the idea is to evolve it here, and gather community participation, this should be reworded from created to initiated and a mention to it being a Wikibook project would look nice. --Panic (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Porphyria
I nominate Porphyria, the "vampire disease" as a "bad science" candidate. This illness seems like a medical hoax, yet without Scientific evidence, how can expensive tests for porphyria, and associated vampire treatments, be discredited and exposed? Any person interested? Thanks Peyton09 (discuss • contribs) 20:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)