Voodoo Science

Last updated
Voodoo Science:
The Road from Foolishness to Fraud
Voodoo-science.jpg
Cover of the first edition
Authors Robert L. Park
CountryUK & USA
LanguageEnglish
Subjects Science, Pseudoscience
Published2000
PublisherOxford University Press
Media typePrint (Hardcover and Paperback)
Pages230
ISBN 0-19-860443-2
Text Voodoo Science:
The Road from Foolishness to Fraud
online

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud [1] is a book published in 2000 by physics professor Robert L. Park, critical of research that falls short of adhering to the scientific method. Other people have used the term "voodoo science", [2] [3] but amongst academics it is most closely associated with Park. [4] Park offers no explanation as to why he appropriated the word voodoo to describe the four categories detailed below. [1] The book is critical of, among other things, homeopathy, cold fusion and the International Space Station. [5]

Contents

Categories

Park uses the term voodoo science (see the quote section below, Page 10) as covering four categories which evolve from self-delusion to fraud:

Park criticizes junk science as the creature of "scientists, many of whom have impressive credentials, who craft arguments deliberately intended to deceive or confuse." [6]

Examples cited

Park also discusses the Daubert standard for excluding junk science from litigation.

Quotes

Warning signs

Drawing on examples used in Voodoo Science, Park outlined seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific in a 2003 article for The Chronicle of Higher Education : [8]

  1. Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
  2. Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
  3. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
  4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
  5. True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
  6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
  7. The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

Reception

Matt Nisbet in the Skeptical Inquirer noted that the reaction to Voodoo Science has been mostly favorable. [9]

Bob Goldstein in a book review for Nature Cell Biology described Park as an equivalent to Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould, scientific writers who have "talent for defending a view of the world that is perfectly rational and free of witchcraft and superstition." [10]

American chemist Nicholas Turro wrote "the book is entertaining and provocative reading... Whether or not you agree with Park's take on voodoo science, a message of the book is that if scientists do not take a more significant role in the way that science is disseminated to the public and especially to politicians, voodoo science will continue to survive." [11]

The mathematician Malcolm Sherman in the American Scientist gave the book a positive review stating "Park does more than analyze and expose various kinds of bad ("voodoo") science. He demonstrates how valid science is distorted or ignored by the media and by those (including scientists) seeking to influence public policy." [12] The physicist Kenneth R. Foster also positively reviewed the book concluding "Park is an articulate and skeptical voice of reason about science." [13]

Reviewing the book for The New York Times , Ed Regis compared it positively to the 1957 book by Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science , calling Voodoo Science a "worthy successor" and praising it for explaining why various purportedly scientific claims were in fact impossible. [5] Science writer Kendrick Frazier wrote "Robert Park has brought us a book that has a freshness and originality—and an importance and potential for influence—perhaps not seen since Gardner’s first." [14]

Robin McKie for The Observer described it as "an admirable analysis: wittily written, vivid and put together without a hint of malice." [15]

Rachel Hay in a review wrote that Park had "debunked expertly" pseudoscience topics such as homeopathy, cold fusion and perpetual motion machines but the book is not easily accessible to students. [16] However, S. Elizabeth Bird an anthropology professor recommended it for "students who need to establish a grasp of the scientific method." [17]

Bruce Lewenstein wrote a critical review claiming Park had lumped together pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience and fraud all together as voodoo science but this is problematic as "each category alone is fraught with definitional, historical, and analytical difficulties." [18] Brian Josephson wrote that the book, while giving "the official story regarding a number of 'mistaken beliefs' ", did not provide "the additional information that might lead one to conclude that the official view does not tell the whole story." [19]

See also

Debunking

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Homeopathy</span> Pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine

Homeopathy or homoeopathy is a pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine. Its practitioners, called homeopaths, believe that a substance that causes symptoms of a disease in healthy people can cure similar symptoms in sick people; this doctrine is called similia similibus curentur, or "like cures like". All relevant scientific knowledge about physics, chemistry, biochemistry and biology contradicts homeopathy. Homeopathic remedies are typically biochemically inert, and have no effect on any known disease. Its theory of disease, centered around principles Hahnemann termed miasms, is inconsistent with subsequent identification of viruses and bacteria as causes of disease. Clinical trials have been conducted and generally demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations. The fundamental implausibility of homeopathy as well as a lack of demonstrable effectiveness has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as quackery and fraud.

The expression junk science is used to describe scientific data, research, or analysis considered by the person using the phrase to be spurious or fraudulent. The concept is often invoked in political and legal contexts where facts and scientific results have a great amount of weight in making a determination. It usually conveys a pejorative connotation that the research has been untowardly driven by political, ideological, financial, or otherwise unscientific motives.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">N-ray</span>

N-rays were a hypothesized form of radiation, described by French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot in 1903, and initially confirmed by others, but subsequently found to be illusory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Pseudoscience</span> Unscientific claims wrongly presented as scientific

Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is often characterized by contradictory, exaggerated or unfalsifiable claims; reliance on confirmation bias rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts; absence of systematic practices when developing hypotheses; and continued adherence long after the pseudoscientific hypotheses have been experimentally discredited.

Pathological science is an area of research where "people are tricked into false results ... by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions." The term was first used by Irving Langmuir, Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the Knolls Research Laboratory. Langmuir said a pathological science is an area of research that simply will not "go away"—long after it was given up on as "false" by the majority of scientists in the field. He called pathological science "the science of things that aren't so."

<i>The Skeptics Dictionary</i> Collection of skeptical essays by Robert Todd Carroll

The Skeptic's Dictionary is a collection of cross-referenced skeptical essays by Robert Todd Carroll, published on his website skepdic.com and in a printed book. The skepdic.com site was launched in 1994 and the book was published in 2003 with nearly 400 entries. As of January 2011 the website has over 700 entries. A comprehensive single-volume guides to skeptical information on pseudoscientific, paranormal, and occult topics, the bibliography contains some seven hundred references for more detailed information. According to the back cover of the book, the on-line version receives approximately 500,000 hits per month.

Brilliant Light Power, Inc. (BLP), formerly BlackLight Power, Inc. of Cranbury, New Jersey, is a company founded by Randell L. Mills, who claims to have discovered a new energy source from observing that electron in a hydrogen atom can drop below the lowest energy state into a "hydrino state". The claims lack corroborating scientific evidence despite claims of experimental verification, and the proposed hydrino states are unphysical and incompatible with key equations of Quantum Mechanics. BLP has announced several times that it was about to deliver commercial products based on Mill's theories but is yet to deliver a working product.

Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted. Fringe science theories are often advanced by persons who have no traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline. The general public has difficulty distinguishing between science and its imitators, and in some cases a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert L. Park</span> American physicist & skeptic (1931–2020)

Robert Lee Park was an American emeritus professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and a former director of public information at the Washington office of the American Physical Society. Park was most noted for his critical commentaries on alternative medicine and pseudoscience, as well as his criticism of how legitimate science is distorted or ignored by the media, some scientists, and public policy advocates as expressed in his book Voodoo Science. He was also noted for his preference for robotic over manned space exploration.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Luc Montagnier</span> French virologist and Nobel Laureate (1932–2022)

Luc Montagnier was a French virologist and joint recipient, with Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Harald zur Hausen, of the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his discovery of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). He worked as a researcher at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and as a full-time professor at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in China.

Dean Radin investigates phenomena in parapsychology. Following a bachelor and master's degree in electrical engineering and a PhD in educational psychology Radin worked at Bell Labs, researched at Princeton University, GTE Laboratories, University of Edinburgh, SRI International, Interval Research Corporation, and was a faculty member at University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Radin then became Chief Scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), in Petaluma, California, USA. Radin served on dissertation committees at Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center, and was former President of the Parapsychological Association. He is also co-editor-in-chief of the journal Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Water memory</span> Refuted theory behind homeopathic remedies

Water memory is the purported ability of water to retain a memory of substances previously dissolved in it even after an arbitrary number of serial dilutions. It has been claimed to be a mechanism by which homeopathic remedies work, even when they are diluted to the point that no molecule of the original substance remains, but has no scientific proof.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">History of pseudoscience</span>

The history of pseudoscience is the study of pseudoscientific theories over time. A pseudoscience is a set of ideas that presents itself as science, while it does not meet the criteria to properly be called such.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Oscillococcinum</span> Homeopathic product

Oscillococcinum is a homeopathic preparation marketed to relieve flu-like symptoms, although it does not provide any benefit beyond that of a placebo.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nicholas Wade</span> British science writer

Nicholas Michael Landon Wade is a British author and journalist. He is the author of numerous books, and has served as staff writer and editor for Nature, Science, and the science section of The New York Times.

The Patterson power cell is an electrolysis device invented by chemist James A. Patterson, which he said created 200 times more energy than it used, and neutralize radioactivity without emitting any harmful radiation. It is one of several cells that some observers classified as cold fusion; cells which were the subject of an intense scientific controversy in 1989, before being discredited in the eyes of mainstream science.

The Hongcheng Magic Liquid incident was a scam in China where Wang Hongcheng, a bus driver from Harbin with no scientific education, claimed in 1983 that he could turn regular water into a fuel as flammable as petrol by simply dissolving a few drops of his liquid in it. He founded the Hongcheng Magic Liquid company with funds from Chinese governmental agencies and other supporters, raising a total of 300 million yuan, but no product was ever released.

Microwave News reports on the health and environmental impacts of electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and other types of non-ionizing radiation, with special emphasis on cell phones and power lines. It also covers radar, radio and TV broadcast towers and many related topics. Its headquarters is in New York City.

Homeopathy is a peer-reviewed medical journal covering research, reviews, and debates on all aspects of homeopathy, a pseudoscientific form of alternative medicine. It is the official journal of the London-based Faculty of Homeopathy. The journal was established in 1911 as the British Homoeopathic Journal, resulting from a merger between the British Homoeopathic Review and the Journal of the British Homoeopathic Society. It obtained its current name in 2001 and the Editor-in-chief is Dr Robert Mathie. The journal was originally published by Nature Publishing Group, and was then published by Elsevier. Elsevier's decision to publish this journal has been called into question, given homeopathy's proven ineffectiveness and unscientific status. Elsevier's Vice President of Global Corporate Relations, Thomas Reller, has defended Elsevier's decision to publish the journal, saying that "We support debate around this topic". The journal has been published by Thieme Medical Publishers since 2018.

References

  1. 1 2 Park, Robert L (2000), Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud, Oxford, U.K. & New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN   0-19-860443-2 , retrieved 14 November 2010
  2. Oversight Hearing on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency. Committee on Education and Labor. Subcommittee on Human Resources. United States Congress. 1984. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
  3. William Booth. (1988). Voodoo Science. Science . New Series. Vol. 240, No. 4850. pp. 274-277.
  4. "Voodoo Science". The Skeptic's Dictionary .
  5. 1 2 Ed Regis. (2000)."Theres One Born Every Minute [sic]". The New York Times .
  6. Robert L. Park. (2000). p. 171
  7. Michael Maiello (6 June 2005). "Archived copy". Forbes . Archived from the original on May 3, 2007. Retrieved October 16, 2011.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link). Forbes.
  8. Robert L. Park. (2003). "Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science". The Chronicle of Higher Education .
  9. Matt Nisbet. (2001). "A Look Back at the Best Skeptic Book of 2000". Csicop.org. Retrieved 2014-07-12.
  10. Bob Goldstein. (2000). The Professional Debunker (review of the book Voodoo Science: the Road from Foolishness to Fraud, by Robert L. Park). Nature Cell Biology . Vol 2. p. 212.
  11. Nicholas Turro. (2002). Book Review: Voodoo Science. The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Edited by Robert L. Park. Angewandte Chemie . Vol. 41, Issue 14. p. 2436.
  12. Malcolm J. Sherman. (2000). "Exposing Fools Gladly". American Scientist . Vol. 88, No. 5. pp. 461-462.
  13. Kenneth R. Foster. (2000). Unreal Science. Science . New Series, Vol. 288, No. 5471. p. 1595.
  14. Kendrick Frazier. (2000). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Physics Today . Vol 53, No. 10. pp. 78-80.
  15. Robin McKie. (2002). "Paperback of the Week". The Observer .
  16. Rachel Hays. (2001). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park. The American Biology Teacher . Vol. 63, No. 2. p. 140
  17. S. Elizabeth Bird. (2002). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park. Human Biology . Vol. 74, No. 4. pp. 621-623.
  18. Bruce V. Lewenstein. (2004). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Isis . Vol. 95, No. 2. p. 341,
  19. Josephson, Brian (December 2000). "Grey areas on the blacklist". Times Higher Education Supplement . Retrieved 18 August 2014.