Talk:Sound science

""Sound science" is a euphemism for anti-scientific bullshit." - that doesn't even make sense. The lead section needs a serious rewrite. I'd do it if I could figure out what it's trying to say. ħuman 07:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It seems to be a code word for "science that agrees with our policies". Röstigraben (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's better now that I rewrote it, but the original I quoted above and what you rewrote it as are both as clear as mud. Seriously. An article about a mis-used term needs a very clear intro, and this one doesn't have one yet. ħuman 08:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

From the reference:

It all sounds noble enough, but the phrases "sound science" and "peer review" don't necessarily mean what you might think. Instead, they're part of a lexicon used to put a pro-science veneer on policies that most of the scientific community itself tends to be up in arms about.

The important thing is that this phrase is used by politicians, not scientists. Maybe "encountered in policy debates"? Röstigraben (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good phrase to use, yes. ħuman 08:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite looks much better, that thing was train-wreck. That's what I get for editing under the influence (of sleep deprivation, that is). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)