Junk science isn't worthy of our attention

In his letter of September 2, Lee Santa asked for a source for what I call real science. It is an odd question, but my answer is simple: Real science is self-evident.

Real science does not depend on magazine subscriptions, internet web sites, blogs, or majority opinions. Webster defines science as “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation.”

Notice that word “facts.” Real science is not based on conjecture, it is based on facts. Did Lee Santa not notice this in his many magazine subscriptions?

Furthermore, these facts are learned through experiments and observation. Hence, the self-evident “source” for real science. Not some magazine subscription or web site or blog, but experiments and observations.

Now, when scientists make a prediction about climate change, that is not real science. It is a potential future event that has not yet taken place, and may not even happen at all. It is therefore “junk” science. It cannot be proven in a laboratory by the scientific method. It is mere conjecture and is not self-evident. And if it was a religious prophecy, most people would either make fun of it or disregard it completely.

However, when a scientific theory matches up with reality, it ceases to be theory and becomes real science. The problem with much of climate “science” is that it doesn’t match up with reality. Thus, it is junk science and not worthy of our attention.

I hope this answers Lee’s question.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle