Misplaced Pages

Voodoo Science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:54, 24 June 2013 editLimulus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users6,540 edits rv wholesale removal of text; to paraphrase, I don't see any reason why it would be justified to remove such an extensive summary of the outline of the book← Previous edit Revision as of 22:05, 27 October 2013 edit undoBrian Josephson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,093 edits →External links: review of book in THESNext edit →
Line 153: Line 153:
* *
{{Use dmy dates|date=June 2011}} {{Use dmy dates|date=June 2011}}
*


{{DEFAULTSORT:Voodoo Science}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Voodoo Science}}

Revision as of 22:05, 27 October 2013

Robert L. Park's book, Voodoo Science:
The Road from Foolishness to Fraud

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 authors have used the term "voodoo science", but it remains 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

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

Quotes

  • 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)
  • ractitioners 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 term voodoo 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)
  • 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)

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.

See also

Books

Specific Examples

References

  1. 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. United States Congress. 1984. Retrieved 16 October 2011. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  3. W. Booth, "Voodoo Science", Science 1988 Apr 15; 240(4850):274-7
  4. Voodoo Science, The Skeptics Dictionary
  5. There's One Born Every Minute, Ed Regis, The New York Times, June 4, 2000
  6. Park, R.L. (2000), p.171
  7. Michael Maiello (06 June 2005). "Power Failure". Forbes. Retrieved 16 October 2011. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  8. Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Science Robert L. Park, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan 31, 2003.

External links

Categories: