The article is about science clichés ... bad reporting of real science. Why has this been changed to "pseudo-science" in the thread title?
Thought you guys might like this piece of scientific revisionism:
5 Atrocious Science Clichés to Throw Down a Black Hole
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...cience/#submit
So, as a variation on this theme, how about contributing your most loathed 'pseudo-scientific' cliches.
Don't tase me, Bro!
The article is about science clichés ... bad reporting of real science. Why has this been changed to "pseudo-science" in the thread title?
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Cause that is my Thread topic:
"So, as a variation on this theme, how about contributing your most loathed 'pseudo-scientific' cliches"
If you read the article people are invited to decide what atrocities they would throw down a Black Hole. It is perfectly legitimate to phrase the question as I have done.
Last edited by SorryImPsychic; 19th July 2009 at 11:09 AM.
Don't tase me, Bro!
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield
I keep getting this terrible feeling of deja woo.
Holistic ... natural ... energy (in anything other than its physical sense) ... life force ... wellness ... balance ...
Be skeptical of the things you believe are false, but be very skeptical of the things you believe are true.
Chemical. "I don't like Cruzcampo - it's full of chemicals" or "I only use deodorant that doesn't contain chemicals"
"Contains chemicals" or sometimes "Processed" means "Not natural"
I'm not too happy with Organic either. I wonder what a "Natural Organic Chemical" is ???
Why would anyone want to produce a list of cliches?
Bookmarks