Book Review: Voodoo Science

During the cavalcade of April Fool's spoofs here on /., one submission stuck in my mind as fascinating and enjoyable -- and a complete scam. It was about an alleged anti-gravity disc, made from a 12" superconducting ring that looked not unlike a brake pad. As luck would have it, I was reading the book Voodoo Science at the time and thought once the April Fools hoopla had died down that I'd do a review of it for Slashdot, so read on if you care to. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud author Robert Park pages 230 publisher Oxford University Press rating 4/5 reviewer chrisd ISBN 0195147103 summary Robert Park exposes how bad science propogates. Perhaps I should have posted the story, but in the end that sort of pseudo-scientific chicanery doesn't even deserve the attention that /. would bring it on April Fool's day.

The short review of Voodoo Science is that this is not a book that would make a good birthday gift for Alex Chiu or for that matter Deepak Chopra.

Voodoo Science is a happy little bon-bon of a book for the scientifically inclined. Robert Park is the head of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, and has worked inside the beltway helping the U.S. government and others understand the basics of science so they can make appropriate policy decisions. It is depressingly clear how badly they need it.

While there is a certain level of joy to be found in reading about Mr. Park's exploits debunking cranks and frauds, there is a sad realization that prominent legislators have no clue as to the physical laws that are the underpinnings of science. No, I wasn't surprised, but it was depressing nonetheless to see Trent Lott's name on a resolution designed to push through a patent on a "free energy" device, or Tom Harkin using his power to force the NIH to embrace alternative medicine as anything other than a placebo.

While fun, this isn't a perfect book. It is organized a little strangely, with subheadings throwing off the flow of reading, and at a little over 200 pages it seems too short.Park's mission with this book was not to dissect the great scientific frauds of all time, but I thought he could have spent more time on the issues he did bring up and less on trying to understand the Alex Chius of the world. Mr. Park is probably just trying to be polite, but in my reading of Voodoo Science he comes off as being too soft on the very targets of the book.

The case of cold fusion is a perfect example. His recounting of the famous events was right on, but it just fell flat when it came to to point the finger at Pons, Fleischman and the University of Utah for their complicity in fraud before the Utah state legislature. It is akin to writing a book about Enron and saying about Ken Lay: "It is likely he knew what he was doing was possibly improper."

I'd recommend Voodoo Science as a good gift to a younger reader, as it describes foundations of science in an accessible way. As you've probably gathered, an appropriate name for this book might be "The Laws of Thermodynamics and those that thought it didn't apply to them." As such, the book serves as a decent introduction to critical thinking about the physical world around us.

You can purchase Voodoo Science from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Comments

Weekly 'What's New'

[gorilla]

Park has a weekly 'What's new' email, where he briefly describes the weeks events, you can read it on the web, or subscribe for the email list.

Good book

[Eloquence]

I read Voodo Science. It's a good book and gives a nice summary of subjects like homeopathy and manned space exploration. What it lacks the most are sources. The author states that he didn't want his book to be riddled with footnotes so as not to confuse the reader, but that is obviously a stupid attitude for a book that is written to encourage people to embrace science. Author Robert Park also writes a newsletter called What's New about developments in Voodo Science.

Park's book should be read together with another one: Trust Us, We're Experts! (Amazon) by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. While there is a lot of "junk science" out there, there is at least as much corporate sponsorship behind efforts to discredit real scientific work as such. See also this story about PR efforts to discredit global warming, and my related K5 comment.

double blind trials

[streetlawyer]

Your statement is a lie. The September 1997 issue of the Lancet published a metastudy which summarised 89 double-blind trials of homeopathic medicine and concluded that it was not possible to dismiss the results as chance. Here are a few such references.

Furthermore, your reference to Avogadro's number is ignorant. We actually don't understand dilution very well, but we do know that the simplistic model you assume (one in which you simply divide the moles of active agent by moles of water) does not describe the results of multiple dilutions very well at all. In actual fact, molecules often "clump" together, with more or less unknown effects on their agency inside human beings.

The tragedy, and needless danger, is created by know-it-all types who dismiss anything they don't understand rather than acting like grown-up scientists and doing research.

Oh yeh, and

As one doctor said regarding the recent governmental report on "alternative" medicines (to paraphrase), "There are only two kinds of medicine -- that which works and that which doesn't. If something that's considered to be alternative is shown to work then it's adopted. If not, it is not."

If you believe this, why all that piss, wind and vinegar about homeopathy? In the treatment of allergies and osteoarthritis, homeopathic remedies have been widely adopted. Around 32% of French and 42% of English general practitioners regularly refer patients to homeopaths. Because, presumably, they care more about making people better than about looking good in front of the Science Police.

Re:double blind trials

[at_18]

Your statement is a lie. The September 1997 issue of the Lancet published a metastudy which summarised 89 double-blind trials of homeopathic medicine and concluded that it was not possible to dismiss the results as chance.

If you reference an article, you should read it. Some quotes from that 1997 study:

"The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."

"Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach on any single clinical condition."

Not exactly the homeopathic confirm that you make it appear.

Aerodynamic Misconceptions

[phliar]

Until very recently, bumblebees were unable to fly according to our best models of aerodynamics.

BULLSHIT!!!

I was trying to not comment on this old canard, but this is the third comment in this thread saying this and I couldn't take it any more.

When exactly is "very recently"? "Best models" according to whom?

It is true that under one simple approximation of fluid mechanics -- the one attributed to Bernoulli that discounts non-linear effects, which makes it easy for high-school students to analyse -- insects' wing-loading is too high to be explained. This doesn't even come close to being "our best models of aerodynamics".

If you didn't learn simple fluid mechanics in high-school, blame it on your pathetic school system. After all it's just plain conservation of energy and momentum. If you feel like doing some research, look up the Navier-Stokes equation -- from the 19th century.

bullshit

[streetlawyer]

How does: "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" differ materially from "it was not possible to dismiss the results as chance"? I very carefully did not present the study as a "homepathic confirm", simply as evidence that the original poster's statement that there had been no double blind trials which provided any evidence for it.

And your selective quoting of "Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach on any single clinical condition." is positively Orwellian. This was a meta-study of 89 separate studies, most of which analysed the effects of homeopathy in different conditions. Given that, it is quite obvious that it would never find effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach, because that wasn't what it was looking for. You wouldn't find evidence of this kind for penicillin if you took a metastudy of its use in 89 different conditions.