Letter: Junk science

February 16, 2014 

I wish to respond to a recent Fast Focus submission by John Faulkner of Richland, in which he divided science into two categories based on whether it is consistent with the Bible ("true science") or not ("junk science"). His yardstick for judging the worth of scientific information is very different from the one that scientists use.

Scientists evaluate a scientific study based on how it was conducted, not on how well it fits with what they think they know. If the methods used to collect and interpret the data follow sound scientific guidelines, then it is "good" science. These guidelines include rejecting ideas that lack support (no matter how much you like those ideas) and allowing other researchers the opportunity to critically evaluate research methods and results.

To a scientist, "junk science" is science done poorly, not science that makes us re-evaluate how the natural world works.

LORI W. NELSON, Richland

Tri-City Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service