↑ arvau

Wikipedia / Voodoo Science

Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud 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", but amongst academics it is most closely associated with Park. The book is critical of, among other things, homeopathy, cold fusion and the International Space Station.

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:

  • pathological science, wherein genuine scientists deceive themselves

  • junk science, speculative theorizing which bamboozles rather than enlightens

  • pseudoscience proper, work falsely claiming to have a scientific basis, which may be dependent on supernatural explanations

  • fraudulent science, exploiting bad science for the purposes of 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."

Examples cited

Perpetual motion, free energy suppression and fringe physics claims

Human spaceflight (in terms of actual importance to science since the rise of robotic spacecraft)

Voodoo science protected by government secrecy

Superstitions and pseudoscience

Placebos and alternative medicine

Homeopathy

Other health claims

Electromagnetic radiation and health (especially related to power lines and cancer risk)

  • "Paul Brodeur and Microwave News in particular, had given the public a seriously distorted view of the scientific facts." (Page 158)

Contributing factors

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

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:

  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.

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."

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."

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." The physicist Kenneth R. Foster also positively reviewed the book concluding "Park is an articulate and skeptical voice of reason about science."

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. 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."

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

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. However, S. Elizabeth Bird an anthropology professor recommended it for "students who need to establish a grasp of the scientific method."

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." 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."

See also

Debunking

References