Slashdot Mirror
Book Review: Voodoo Science
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.
Dr Mel Thusian
Ann Arbor University
Director of Particle Acceleration
Just a question:
I went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and I've never heard of Ann Arbor University. Google hasn't either. Maybe you meant you meant that you teach at UMich but you're not listed in the university directory. I'm just trying to understand who's speaking here before I decide on your credibility.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
See what Nobel Laureate and professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson has to say of Robert Park.
In Washinton Post, Charles Platt comments like so.
For a good commentary on Park vs Cold Fusion, go to the source.
"When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."
Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
(1) He considers himself a genius.
(2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads....
(3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work....
(4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein....
(5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.
And just because we don't understand how something works doesn't mean that anyone can go and make stupid claims about it, either.
We don't have a unified theory of quantum physics and gravity, but that still doesn't mean that I have to entertain some fraud who claims a unifying theory based on organic waves and universal harmony. Nor do I have to believe that magnets will cure AIDS, even though we have no cure for AIDS yet.
All I expect from a scientific claims is this: A description of an accepted/reviewed experimental method that gives statistically concrete results that can be reproduced in any setting.
If that can't be given, it's a worthless waste of my time.
A: None. The Universe spins the bulb, and the Zen master merely stays out of the way.
Quinine is a homeopathic.
No. It comes in pill form.
It is, in fact, the only effective treatment for malaria that exists.
There's also chloroquine and mefloquine.
See this page, or hey, search google yourself.