垃圾科學

垃圾科學（英語：Junk Science）是虛假或欺詐性的科學數據、研究或分析。這個概念經常在政治和法律背景下被引用，在這些背景下，事實和科學結果在做出決定時具有很大的影響力。該詞帶有貶義色彩，即該研究是由政治、意識形態、金融或其他不科學的動機不良所驅動的。

這一概念因民事法律糾紛中的專家證言（英語：expert testimony）環節而在1990年代流行起來。最近，這一詞彙也用來批評某些公司出於自身目的而研究的環保、公共衛生相關危害（有時也用來反擊這些批評）。

在某些語境，「垃圾科學」也指的是任何與講話者本人所認定的「真科學」（sound science）相左的科學研究。^[1]

歷史

「垃圾科學」一詞在1985年之前就已經有人在用——美國司法部1985年一份報告稱：

不正當科學證據（一般稱「垃圾科學」）已經導致一部分科學研究無法獲當今科學、醫藥界共識所認可。^{[原文 1]}^[2]

1989年，氣候學家傑瑞·馬爾曼（英語：Jerry Mahlman）將「全球暖化是由於太陽週期活動造成」的觀點批判為「喧囂的垃圾科學」（noisy junk science）。^[3]

註解

^ 原文：The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

參考資料

^ Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005,. 95 Suppl 1: S81–91 [2017-08-17]. PMID 16030344. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. （原始內容存檔於2009-05-17）.
^ "Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability" （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館） (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) p.39:
Another way in which causation often is undermined — also an increasingly serious problem in toxic tort cases — is the reliance by judges and juries on non-credible scientific or medical testimony, studies or opinions. It has become all too common for 'experts' or 'studies' on the fringes of or even well beyond the outer parameters of mainstream scientific or medical views to be presented to juries as valid evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific and medical knowledge. Most importantly, this development has led to a deep and growing cynicism about the ability of tort law to deal with difficult scientific and medical concepts in a principled and rational way.
^ Roberts, L. Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science. 1989, 246 (4933): 992–993. PMID 17806372. doi:10.1126/science.246.4933.992.

[2] 原文：The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge.

[Neff2005-1] Neff RA, Goldman LR. Regulatory parallels to Daubert: stakeholder influence, "sound science," and the delayed adoption of health-protective standards. Am J Public Health. 2005,. 95 Suppl 1: S81–91 [2017-08-17]. PMID 16030344. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.044818. （原始內容存檔於2009-05-17）.

[3] "Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the causes, extent and policy implications of the current crisis in insurance availability and affordability" （頁面存檔備份，存於網際網路檔案館） (Rep. No. 027-000-01251-5). (1986, February). Washington, D.C.: Superintendent of Documents, US Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED274437) p.39:
Another way in which causation often is undermined — also an increasingly serious problem in toxic tort cases — is the reliance by judges and juries on non-credible scientific or medical testimony, studies or opinions. It has become all too common for 'experts' or 'studies' on the fringes of or even well beyond the outer parameters of mainstream scientific or medical views to be presented to juries as valid evidence from which conclusions may be drawn. The use of such invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as 'junk science') has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific and medical knowledge. Most importantly, this development has led to a deep and growing cynicism about the ability of tort law to deal with difficult scientific and medical concepts in a principled and rational way.

[4] Roberts, L. Global warming: Blaming the sun. Science. 1989, 246 (4933): 992–993. PMID 17806372. doi:10.1126/science.246.4933.992.

[1]

[原文 1]

[2]

[3]