What are some typical words to look for to determine if a scientific article is from a kook.?

Question

When I see the word "scientific" or "prove" my bullshit filter notices that right away; example: "We used scientific instruments to prove that ghosts are in the house". Another common method is to incorrectly imply that A proves B; example: "We found postive ferrite ions in the soil at the crop circle. This proves that people could not have created it."

What other ways do you use to determine if a "scientific" article is written by a kook?

Answer 1

quantum

clinically proven

proprietary analysis/data/method/technique

there's a good start...

Answer 2

Claims that something cures or causes too many diseases:

"... just drink 3 oz a day and it cures migraines, ADHD, all types of cancer cancer, excessive burping, and toothaches... '

Answer 3

I have found that the word "magic" in the title is a sure sign of a kook.

Answer 4

You have to go by the integrity of the publication, not the writer.

Any article that is published in a solid, major magazine must go through lawyers, edit checks, spelling checks, then again edit checks, then it has to be fact checked, which means they must be able to produce people to phone numbers, make sure places exist, contact all witnesses again to make sure the writing matches  their story. Then it gets sent back to the writer to re-write and then edited again and the chief editor takes a look at it a some point in transition.

If you read the Washington Post, you can bet they are not wanting to be caught with what they call a cooked story.

Magazines that make their money from subscribers who pay to read somewhat believable fantasy, know that and treat their readers accordingly.

Answer 5

Paranormal Engineer

Entity Specialist

Researcher for the UnIdentifiable.

Answer 6

If it's not in a real, peer-reviewed scientific journal.  That makes me suspect it immediately.  Oh, and anyone who thanks god for divine inspiration.

Answer 7

Signs are; mentioning a repressive bureaucracy, short-sighted superiors, alternate medicine, conspiracies, hidden agendas, homeopathy, complacent establishment, mentioning how long it took for well known early science figures to become accepted, bypassing an "unnecessary" peer review or verification step, "minor" or "unimportant" methodology flaws, membership in the Flat-Earth Society, praising the _____ movement, citing the works of L Ron Hubbard, and the work in a newspaper before being accepted for consideration in any science publication.

Answer 8

Yeah, Peter nailed the #1 kook science word, energy. The next favorite kook science word today is "quantum". Whenever I see that, the BS flag goes flying. Another favorite kook science word used to be "magnetic", and that still is used a lot, but I think it's got competition now.

Answer 9

wow, everyone has nailed down just about everything and everyone. if I read all the posts right, there is nothing written anywhere that doesnt send up red flags. So my guess would be dont read anything. there are so many wrong uses for words and terms here I am not even going to start. And for what constitutes a reputable publication, thats purely up to the reader to decide.Every publication(newspaper/magazine) has an editor and staff that decides what is written and how its written. An interesting way of showing this would be the slant towards Global Warming. Whats left out of the arguement is proven info from sources like Nasa. The Arctic Ice sheet is shrinking, yet the Antarctic sheet is growing.  The last warmest year was 1999. 1900 was warmer than 2000. And four of the warmest years on record were during the 1930s during the dust bowl years. Ice cores from the polar regions have shown climate changes in as little as 10 years and we have been in an unusually long warm cycle for centuries. they are trying to say sea levels will rise by 30 meters. Does anyone even realize what 30 meters is? Your talking about the equivilant of 90 feet! thats an impossibility. There isnt enough water on the planet to do this.

     My point is, look for whether or not the article your reading has both sides of the arguement or is slanted to one side for a particular popular political/social movement. if the article is fair and balanced, it will have both sides of  the research.

Answer 10

Basically using vague terms like you have mentioned. Scientists LOVE to explain things in great detail. They would first explain, in detail, what the instrument does. Then they would explain, in detail, how they are going to utilize the device. As for your second example, they would definitely explain the significance of ferrite or any other minerals in the soil.

As for my own BS detectors, if they say something like I found, or my colleagues and I found.. Scientists language is more formal than that. So, it would go more like, "the study found".

Answer 11

Any time, any person claims that it is the absolute truth and that there is no other possibilities, there is a good chance they are a KOOK!

Answer 12

phrases like,"it can be done"-,"scientifically speaking",and you should consider facts that the  categorized "kooks" by apparently prestigious editors in the past,skeptics have derided or ignored many pioneers of science and technology at the time of their greatest discoveries. It is only later that they have become elevated to the status of heroes. some classic examples.;When Alexander Graham Bell Invented the telephone he also made a remarkable leap of imagination. He correctly foresaw how people would use his invention; that they would speak on the phone instead of writing a letter -- an early form of electronic mail(.what skeptics said at that moment;A completely idiotic idea!,)Few examples are more striking than this one. For five years, from December 1903 to September 1908, two young bicycle mechanics from Ohio repeatedly claimed to have built a heavier than air flying machine and to have flown it successfully. But despite scores of public demonstrations, affidavits from local dignitaries, and photographs of themselves flying, the claims of Wilbur and Orville Wright were derided and dismissed as a hoax by Scientific American, the New York Herald, the US Army and most American scientists.,so my advice,you should be careful

because life and science are full of surprises and kooks (even skeptics can be more kook-er's than alternative thinkers,however if your question is just to share an interest with the skeptic tribe ,then this might be not, the information you are looking for...

Answer 13

Anything published in or by the following:

Skeptical Inquirer (link below)

Skeptic Magazine (link below)

Prometheus Books (link below)

James Randi Educational Foundation (link below)

Rather I look for articles in peer reviewed science journals or books written by  people with advanced education in their respective fields.

Answer 14

"Energy" is one.  It's truly amazing how many people don't even know what energy is.  So many seem to think energy is this nebulous cloud that just floats around waiting to be used or manipulated by some therapy, rather than the fact that it's the result of a physical or chemical reaction between two different things (i.e. food and the body, combustibles and a flame, etc.)

Also, beware of anything involving a "life force".  This is much like the ever-present "energy" explanation but is more commonly used in describing quack modalities like chiropractic, acupuncture, touch therapy, etc.

Another thing to look for is anything referring to quantum mechanics.  This is a dead giveaway the claim being made is totally fabricated.

Basically, the only sure-fire way a con or pseudoscience can be pulled off is the explaination using magic (i.e. something that isn't possible but requires suspension of belief) or else if the practitioner tries to confuse (i.e. still impossible, by with a scientific explanation that sounds plausible).

The two phrases I also look for are "anything is possible" and "keep an open mind".  Those two phrases try to disarm you of your natural urge to exercise your critical thinking skills.