- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 2
-
Sparkle (0)
When so many Americans are semiliterate at best when it comes to science, it's all too easy for erroneous or biased information to spread throughout the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Fortunately, women science bloggers are on the pseudoscience beat, aiming to correct misconceptions. This post provides a sampling of women bloggers' work in improving scientific literacy.
Helen San of Freedom 2 Question brings us up to speed on what exactly constitutes pseudoscience. Her post is interesting because it looks at the ways pseudoscience creeps into oft-cited medical research papers as well as, for example, paranormal research and and conspiracy theories.
There are plenty of bloggers out there who analyze bad medicine. One of my favorite debunkers of pseudoscience is epidemiologist Tara C. Smith of Aetiology; recently she has been providing a lot of great information about swine flu and pandemics. Another useful blog I just stumbled across is AIDSTruth, whose team of bloggers includes Jeanne Bergman and Bette Korber. The blog takes to task both AIDS denialists and bogus scientific controversies.
Volcanista takes on claims that products are "natural" or "chemical free":
Lately I have found myself feeling less and less tolerant of pseudoscientific talk on the subjects of chemistry and consumer materials. Now, I think I'm a pretty good little liberal, and I have great respect for the crunchiest of my liberal compatriots. I also work to respect other cultures and look for value in traditions and accumulated cultural knowledge from around the world. I'd be the first to tell you that there are many good reasons to prefer eating one kind of food over another, or to choose one soap over another, or even a soapless existence if that's what works for you or saves the puppies. But I'm not talking about making personal choices, or even about what may or may not be a beneficial choice from an ecological or broad social standpoint. I'm talking about the words themselves, about the pseudoscientific framing that informs discourse about how certain things are better or worse for you or society because they are more "natural," "real," or, my favorite, "chemical-free" (though I mean, who doesn't love a good vacuum). These words are used a lot these days, but I especially hear them from people who belong to a particular social class -- relatively affluent, generally white, often but not exclusively liberal. This talk sometimes goes hand-in-hand with similarly pseudoscientific advocacy for medicinal treatments that may accomplish something beneficial for a person, but that are not backed up by hard science: things like gall bladder detoxes, fruit juice purges, and yoga positions that heal your pancreas. Oh, and weight-loss talk.
For posts in a similar vein, check out Junkfood Science and The Beauty Brains. Two of my favorite recent posts, respectively, are about probiotics during pregnancy and natural cosmetics.
Skeptigirl tackles topics from the toxicity of baby carrots to sea monsters.
Where do you turn--besides the Snopes science page--to verify scientific claims you see as ambiguous or misleading?
Leslie Madsen-Brooks develops learning experiences for K-12, university, and museum clients. She blogs at The Clutter Museum, Museum Blogging, and The Multicultural Toybox.
