You might say, well JunkScience shouldn’t touch on political issues–and what would you call chemophobia, climate change, and policy decisions on climate, energy policy, and air pollution?
Here’s the reason, a long time ago, that I decided to study economics and history–to play you have to understand the game.
Reliable intellectual inquiry is essential to areas of concern for human culture and society not originally thought of as science–social/cultural/political issues.
However all mixed up in what I would consider the soft sciences are the efforts to sort out what is true, what is verifiable, just like in the hard sciences, and it makes a difference because it can influence decisions. Psychology and sociology, as unreliable as they are, influence judges in cases, and politicians in legislative affairs. We must clean up these areas of inquiry or at least hold people to proper inquiry and gathering of evidence.
For example, should junkscience.com concern itself with bad psych, economics, social sciences, anthropology? No doubt.
Trouble is, sometimes these corrupting influences effect what we like o think are harder sciences that insist on more disciplined concerns for reliable evidence.
So why shouldn’t I show you a tight and straight forward discussion of the insanity of the present that in many cases is based on a commitment to junk science research and policy making?
I have been reading Jeff Lord for a long time and never been disappointed with his analyses.
http://spectator.org/print/57555