Cite some reasons for the existence of controversies within science, and carefully distinguish between sound science and junk science

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

"There [are] at least four reasons" for controversies in science. First, "we are continually confronted by new observation . . . [and it] takes some time before all the hypotheses regarding the cause of what we have observed can be adequately tested. During this time, there may be honest disagreement as to which hypothesis is most likely. Such controversies are gradually settled by further observations and testing. . . ." Second, we are looking at complex phenomena that "do not lend themselves to simple tests of experiments. . . . Gradually, different lines of evidence come to support one hypothesis and exclude another, enabling the issue to be resolved." Third, "there are many vested interests which wish to maintain and promote disagreement because they stand to profit by doing so." Last, "subjective value judgments may be involved."
Sound science has the scientific method behind it. Assumptions and hypotheses have been tested over and over and over, and papers have been reviewed by peers before being published. Historic sciences such as astronomy and geology have many careful observations and measurements that are repeated over and over. Junk science does not conform to the rigors of science. It picks only the observations or results that "prove" its point. The material may be published but not in recognized peer-reviewed journals.