Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud[1] is a book published in 2000 by physics professorRobert L. Park, critical of research that falls short of adhering to thescientific 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 wordvoodoo to describe the four categories detailed below.[1] The book is critical of, among other things,homeopathy,cold fusion and theInternational Space Station.[5]
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, exploitingbad science for the purposes offraud
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]
I came to realize that many people choose scientific beliefs the same way they choose to be Methodists, or Democrats, or Chicago Cubs fans. They judge science by how well it agrees with the way they want the world to be. (Pages VIII-IX)
[P]ractitioners [ofpseudoscience] may believe it to be science, just as witches and faith healers may truly believe they can call forth supernatural powers. What may begin as an honest error, however, has a way of evolving through almost imperceptible steps from self-delusion to fraud. The line between foolishness and fraud is thin. Because it is not always easy to tell when that line is crossed, I use the termvoodoo science to cover them all: pathological science, junk science, pseudoscience and fraudulent science. This book is meant to help the reader to recognize voodoo science and to understand the forces that seem to conspire to keep it alive. (Page 10)
The integrity of science is anchored in the willingness of scientists to test their ideas and results in direct confrontation with their scientific peers. (Page 16)
America's astronauts have been left stranded in low-Earth orbit, like passengers waiting beside an abandoned stretch of track for a train that will never come, bypassed by the advance of science. (Page 91)
Few scientists or inventors set out to commit fraud. In the beginning, most believe they have made a great discovery. But what happens when they finally realize that things are not behaving as they believed? (Page 104)
[T]he uniquely American myth of the self-educated genius fighting against a pompous, close-minded establishment. (Page 112)
They are betting against the laws of thermodynamics. No one has ever won that wager. (Page 138)
Drawing on examples used inVoodoo Science, Park outlined seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific in a 2003 article forThe Chronicle of Higher Education:[8]
Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
Discoverers claim that aconspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it fromnoise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
Matt Nisbet in theSkeptical Inquirer noted that the reaction toVoodoo Science has been mostly favorable.[9]
Bob Goldstein in a book review forNature Cell Biology described Park as an equivalent toRichard Dawkins andStephen 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 chemistNicholas 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 theAmerican 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 forThe New York Times,Ed Regis compared it positively to the 1957 book byMartin Gardner,Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, callingVoodoo Science a "worthy successor" and praising it for explaining why various purportedly scientific claims were in fact impossible.[5] Science writerKendrick 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 forThe 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 ashomeopathy,cold fusion andperpetual 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 togetherpathological 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]
^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.
^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.
