"Bob Peterson" wrote...

Junk science is junk science.

Saying "it's too political so it must be wrong"
is the same as saying "it's wrong because it's
wrong." It's a completely conclusory, content-free
statement you're making.

I don't recall saying it too political so it
must be wrong.

What you said was, "Junk science is junk science, especially
when done for political reasons."

The reasons that science is done has *no bearing* on whether
it's done properly. Either it's good science or it's not,
independent of the state of mind those doing it.

you can make generalizations about information
when you know the source.

Not about whether or not it's 'junk science.' Such a stance
shows complete ignorance of the meaning of 'science.'

The information gathered from kooks is not
credible. It might even be accurate,
but the fact that it is dispensed by nut
cases is good grounds to question it.

Having grounds for questioning something is very different
from saying it's per se not credible. If you can't see *that*
difference you're creating strong grounds for questioning *your*
credibility.

To say it can be accurate but not credible makes no sense.