"Fake" science vs. "real" science

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 3:05 am Post subject: "Fake" science vs. "real" science

What do you think the differences are between "fake" science and "real" science?

There are some people who look at environmental issues as being "fake" science, even though it has a lot of proof behind it.

There are some people who look at "creationism" as a "real" science, even though there's NO proof behind it.

How can these things be argued when there are obviously radically different viewpoints of what "real" and "fake" science is?

What do you think?

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124

Science is all about debate, analysis, testing theories, etc. Therefore I think the only time science is "fake" is simply when it is created for some sort of agenda. Obviously, Creationism has a religious agenda behind it. Some people feel like their is a liberal agenda behind global warming. But the more something is scientifically analyzed the fatter the line gets between fake and real. For example, Global Warming has been debated and analyzed long enough that most people WITHOUT an agenda now believe it. Certainly most of the scientific community.

Kizzume · Posted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 4:03 pm Post subject:

I agree with you totally on this. Smile

jq · Joined: 02 Dec 2007 Posts: 1124