One of my biggest pet peeves is when people site junk science as a credible source.
Real science is very, very boring to read. It uses a lot of jargon and is confusing to understand. Junk science is chock full of catching phrases like "Leaked video reveals ____" or "Shocking Secrets of _____". It is very easy to read and understand. Most people are much more likely to read junk science. It is all over the internet.
Real Science will be articles with titles like "Satb2 haploinsufficiency phenocopies 2q32-q33 deletions, whereas loss suggests a fundamental role in the coordination of jaw development" Junk Science would be an article that says "Child Born With No Mouth, SATB2 Gene Guilty!"
Google and Wikipedia, though surely great founts of knowledge, DO NOT count as credible sources. A real scientific article will have a huge long list citing the sources that sound just as boring as the title of the article you just read. Junk science will list few, if any, actual sources.
Remember: .com sites are not as believable as .edu or .gov or .org.
How many authors does your article have? If there is one person that wrote it, more likely to be junk science (not always, but often!). If there is a long list of authors, more likely to be real science.
|Real science! Amazing!!!|
Real science will not have exciting or jaw-dropping pictures. Maybe some black and white photos comparing the thumbs of the test subjects, or a chart of results of bone density scans. Junk science will have flashy, colored pictures of horrific medical anomalies, or a heart-breaking, stock photo of a mother crying. BIG difference.
In real science, there aren't many ads at all. Maybe one computer-related ad on the side of the screen. If you are getting pop-ups, or have to click 21 times to read the whole article, or see links to other junk science articles like "12 Ways Corn is Killing you" probably junk science! If you fall asleep twice reading the tiny text in the 42 pages, much more likely to be real science!
So, when you tell me about a "cure" for my child you found on the internet after 10 minutes of punching catchy phrases into google, I'm not likely to take you seriously. I will be as polite as I can be, but when I see this "article" with links to "Leaked Photos of Boy Living in Cave for 3 Years"... Yeah, much less likely to change my beliefs.