April 1, 2009 (Vol. 29, No. 7)
Strong Points: Good coverage of bad science
Weak Points: Bad layouts of good articles
There’s the likely and the unlikely, the possible and the improbable. What follows is most certainly improbable. Continuing the series on “science gone bad” is Improbable Science, a creation of David Colquhoun who, some might say, has seen the light a bit by expanding his offerings to include “good science.” First, though, the bad. It is quite good, actually, if making people aware of bad science is a good thing. David does a credible job of tackling things done in the name of science that aren’t all that scientific. The layout of his pages is definitely “bad.”The center section deals with his current rants, whereas others are left as links in the Recent Posts section. Tighter organization is called for, but if you want a single post that gives the flavor of the site, check out the link titled “University Abandons Homeopathy Degree.” As for the “good science,” it’s a description of how David thinks science should be administered on a campus. I’ll leave its “goodness” to the reader to decide.