Monthly Archives: November 2012

Hat tip and discussion:Bad Astronomy.

Scientific American has an important article on “How Drug Company Money Is Undermining Science: The pharmaceutical industry funnels money to prominent scientists who are doing research that affects its products–and nobody can stop it”

Science denial: a guide for scientists (pdf) by Josh Rosenau. And, a bonus pie chart from Desmogblog

How much sea ice is there? The most commonly discussed measure is the extent of sea ice in the arctic. This is used mostly because it is easier to measure precisely. However, one downside of measuring extent is that it’s … Continue reading →

Who cares about Randi’s $1 million for evidence of paranormal activity? Now you can get $10 million, just for flushing out Big Foot. See here. Shouldn’t be too hard. After all, someone bumped into one in Washington not long ago: … Continue reading →

Cherry picking is the fallacy of selecting a small subset of data that supports your thesis while ignoring other data that undermines it. This is a fallacy because for just about any claim one can always find a small amount … Continue reading →

It is natural to think that if a scientific theory (e.g., evolutionary biology or climate science) is indeed well-supported by evidence, then a public debate would be a great forum for the scientists to defend their views against creationists or … Continue reading →

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, … Continue reading →