 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-10-16. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with junk science on 16 October 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
October 2003
editIt seems like this page could include some of its material in scientific method and then just redirect to it. Tempshill 16:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree with this. Why make a page just for "bad science"? There is already pseudoscience, junk science, and scientific method MagicOgre
Newspaper column
editIf this is going to be about the newspaper column it should be at Bad Science which currently goes straight to Ben Goldacre. Personally I think it should just redirect there too.--A Geek Tragedy 23:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even though I just edited this page, I agree. I will put in redirect unless get cries to contrary. --Deditos 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I disagree with this. There is more than one type of "bad science." We need an article that serves as a link amongst the various "bad science" concepts. Bad science is a major concerns and is a complex issue that should not clutter the main scientific method article. Bad science is broader than any of pseudoscience, junk science, and cargo cult science. We will also need to consider bad science of at least three different types in peer-reviewed journals: scientific fraud, mediocore science, and inept science. I do agree that a separate article on the "Bad Science" newspaper column is warranted, but it is only one of several journalistic efforts with a focul on bac science. Arch dude 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a consensus can be arrived at before attempting an integrating article here. There is the category Category:Junk Science which exists already. Might this work? --Ancheta Wis 04:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- I think I disagree with this. There is more than one type of "bad science." We need an article that serves as a link amongst the various "bad science" concepts. Bad science is a major concerns and is a complex issue that should not clutter the main scientific method article. Bad science is broader than any of pseudoscience, junk science, and cargo cult science. We will also need to consider bad science of at least three different types in peer-reviewed journals: scientific fraud, mediocore science, and inept science. I do agree that a separate article on the "Bad Science" newspaper column is warranted, but it is only one of several journalistic efforts with a focul on bac science. Arch dude 03:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- One of the difficulties of this article is the distinction between normative, ie how something should be, and positive science, ie, how something is. These are basically different spheres which might bear more thought.--Ancheta Wis 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
This page is now a redirect to Ben Goldacre. -- The Anome 15:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
This page should not be a redirect page. The term "bad science," is used by the scientific community and does not exclusivly refer to Goldacre's writing. Mrwuggs 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposed merger
edit- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was no consensus. Kkmurray (talk) 01:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- This term appears to be synonymous with "junk science." Mrwuggs 16:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The Junk science article focuses more on agenda-driven bad science. Both articles are already quite long and merging them would make a very long article. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 18:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)