BLA1249

1. Human sciences are "fuzzy" sciences, but they are still sciences.
highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducible, and predictability and testablility.
 * In an article by the LA Times, the writer goes on to say "That's right. psychology isn't a science.... because psychology often doesn't meet the five basic requirements for a field to be considered scientifically rigorous". In his article he states that psychology lacks clearly difined terminology, quantifiability,

Citation: http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713

2. Science requires data.
http://www.breatheology.com/services/articles/health/the-nervous-system-and-the-vagus-nerve
 * This cite though presented valuable knowledge on parasympathetic nervous system reactions, however, there was no academic citations as to where this knowledge came from. This violates Brett's law as science requires data and this data is neither cited nor positively accurate.

3. Science runs on careful criticism.
http://www.albany.edu/~scifraud/data/sci_fraud_3814.html
 * This article explains the process of peer review a little more in depth, as it explains in instances of good academic resources scientific papers and conclusions are given to experts for review and confirmation, to weed the good from the bad, the valid from invalid. However in other instances where the judge is a competitor, bias could come into play when offering a review, and that is where some of the unfair or personal attacks could come from.

4. Fight fire with fire, and data with data.
Susan Greenfield explains in her article "living online is changing our brains. she is hypothesizes that the human brain can change and the environment can be the cause of it. She says there is increase in people with autistic spectrum disorder. she states that "the fact that people are using technology like phones, video games, computers etc. almost every waking hour and that is what could cause the brain to change". Her thinking violates Barretts law of fight fire with fire and data with data because there is no evidence to prove that this hypothesis is accurate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128236.400-susan-greenfield-living-online-is-changing-our-brains.html

6. Correlation is not causation.
http://planetsave.com/2009/06/07/global-warming-effects-and-causes-a-top-10-list/
 * this cite gives 10 "causes" of global warming, although these spikes in chemicals/gases are occurring it is not 100% proven that they are causing a depleated ozone layer (or other harmful environmental effects), they are simply correlating with each other.

7. More of something good isn't always better.
http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2012/04/in_nutella_lawsuit_over_false.html
 * Nutella a popular breakfast spread has claimed for years that it is a healthy breakfast and snack choice for picky children, however like most things it is good in moderation, and overuse can have negative health effects such as weight gain.

8. Beware the plausible, __especially__ if it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2R_VN_vH_g
 * A local company advertised Flex seal, in one of its advertisments, using fantastical words such as fast, instantly, and easy to appeal to the general public. And through out the testimonial the actor shows all the wonderful things the product can do, amd a slight explination as to what the product is but no real detail. and the comericial ends with thte most outrageous and extravagent example to try and persuade the audience.

10. Lack of evidence doesn't mean it's false.
There is an article on whether or not genetically modified corn causes cancer. In the article its states that a scientist fed a certain corn to rats and all the rats died, both male and female rats. The author states that if that is true then why aren't humans "falling like flies". the writer of this article goes on to say that the scientists journal or research finding where very biases in a way. he then goes on to say that the expariment was flawed but had no ways of proving it was flawed other then disagreeing with the info the scientist gathered.

citation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/09/24/does-genetically-modified-corn-cause-cancer-a-flawed-study/