Home > Categories > Pseudoscience 51-
Much of the idiocy on the web is supported by an appeal to misguided or weird science. The sites listed here provide an antidote to the pseudoscience and junk science that threatens to deceive us and rot our brains on a daily basis. (A list of sites based on faulty science can be found at The Millenium Project.)
There are sites listed in this category.
A science teacher's way to spread education about science.
Some science from real scientists rather than deniers.
"ScienceAlert is a website devoted exclusively to delivering Australian & New Zealand science, technology, and innovation news to science, industry, the media, government and the broader community".
An explanation of the scientific method aimed at educating children, not talking down to them.
"Promoting good science and evidence for the public"
"The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise"
"A Skeptical Raptorís native environment is the jungles of the internet, where junk science, pseudoscience, myths, logical fallacies, and outright lies survive unchecked. The Raptor has evolved over several million years to hunt down these anti-science prey, attempting to remove them from the internet gene pool. Remember, a Raptor is missing some table manners, so the prey may not be treated very nicely"
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet uncritically embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming. So this website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say
"A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions"
This is a collaboratively edited question and answer site for scientific skepticism.
The Statistical Assessment Service (STATS), a non-profit non-partisan organization, examines the way that scientific, quantitative, and social research is presented by the media and works with journalists to help them convey this material more accurately and effectively.
"One of the most interesting challenges a practicing scientist faces is explaining to a non-scientist how science works. Though science is one of many "ways of knowing," and not a perfect one, it seems to be the best that the human mind has been able to develop"
This is the place to look for all those patents for perpetual motion machines.
"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities"
How it differs from science, how to spot it. Junk science, pathological science, quackery and scams.