Okay skipvia, gotcha. Real science is always amoral and objective, but there's a lot of pseudoscience out there that rightfully earns the "bad science" title. But yeah, it's a shame that the phrase's meaning has changed in the vernacular.
I don't dispute your connotation, uselessness--I was just referring to the way "bad science" has been used in the vernacular to dismiss facts that don't favor beliefs. As Stephen Colbert said about George Bush, he forms his facts based on his beliefs.
But skipvia, there are plenty of real scientists who would dismiss spurious "research" as bad science, not because they disagree but because it's simply not scientific. In that case, you're not dealing with empirical facts, you're dealing with rhetoric and spin.
Exactly. True believers or financial stakeholders use the term "bad science" when they need to ignore a fact. For example, global warming is "bad science," according to Rep. Don Young. Evolution is "bad science" according to evangelicals. So are carbon dating and plate techtonics. Smoking's link to cancer was "bad science" to the tobacco industry for years.
Doesn't "bad science" usually refer to dishonest research, agenda-driven experiments, and disregard for the scientific method? In other words, it's not real science. But your definition sounds more like it is real science, just inconvenient for certain worldviews.