In the article, “Alex Tsakiris, Psychic Detectives, and Bad Science”, Benjamin Radford explains the difference between good and bad science, by using examples from Alex Tsakiris book, “Why Science is Wrong..About almost everything”, where Tsakiris uses the example of a case Radford researched about psychic detective Nancy Weber. Radford begins by saying that good science needs good data and scientists need to consider all of the evidence for results to be valid, and that when researchers only present the data that support their conclusion it is, “Bad Science(at best) or outright fraud(at worst).” In the case that is mentioned in the book, “Why Science is Wrong..About almost everything” Psychic Detective Nancy Weber assisted police officers in helping to catch serial killer, James Koediatich by predicting biographic details about him which were believed by Tsakiris to be accurate, but Radford denies. This case reminded Radford of how evidence can be “cherry picked” and a psychic’s perdiction will usually be correct due to random chance. Radford states that, “If the selection criteria are valid and the rate is signifigantly above random chance, …show more content…
He could do this by getting false information published, but Radford says that Tsakiris does not understand how his “best case” for psychic detectives is a failure and does not hold any reasonable evidence. Despite Tsakiris asking questions of skeptics and science, according to Radford he is following a special formula that goes against how science works. This formula is: “Speak quickly, act confidently, attack critics, and refuse to aknowledge errors in evidence or arguments. Tsakiris made a weak case for how science is wrong, Radford says that, “If this example is his marquee of how science is wrong, than science is in far better shape than anyone dared