Is X Bullshit?
| X… | Score |
|---|---|
| Sounds too good to be true1 | +1 |
| Competes with an existing theory while offering simpler, more convenient (and often incomplete, less explanatory) explanations2 | +1 |
| Main proponents are willing to test the theory/claim for validity | -3 |
| Someone directly or indirectly benefits of people accepting it as a truth, as an individual (i.e. someone sells the more books/placebo the more people believe in it)34 | +2 |
| Existing knowledge undeniably makes it impossible5 | +3 |
| … and the main proponents ignore (and suggest followers to ignore) existing knowledge that clashes with their own ideas6 | +4 |
| Has peer-reviewed research and/or credible evidence in case it is completely new idea | -2 |
| Is a radically new idea7 | +1 |
| Main proponents and experts are from the same field (e.g. evolutionary biologists defending natural selection vs. mathematicians defending creationism)8 | -2 |
| People supporting the claim or theory are more interested of defending their position and/or creating more supporters rather than researching the subject9 | +1 |
Links
- Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science by Robert L. Park, Ph.D.
- Cold fusion ↩
- Intelligent design ↩
- HeadOn, see this ↩
- Immortality devices by Alex Chiu ↩
- Homeopathy ↩
- The Flat Earth Society ↩
- A lot of sound science goes here, including quantum mechanics, relativity and such but they satisfy the peer-reviewed research requirement ↩
- Creationism has tons of this, including using them as an authority rather than a guy who knows about things. And tons of Steves disagree. ↩
- The whole climate change hassle fits here, albeit only because while the supporters probably are right, they use their energy to moan about the subject and boosting their egos instead of doing anything. ↩
