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.
That he wasn't smart enough to discover the amazing Immortality ring! I didn't want to pay for one, but I was lucky enough to find one while graverobbing.
Moderation: Put your hand inside the puppet head!
Holy moley. I've had more gained more in depth knowledge about their books from 2 minute conversations with strangers on the bus.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The difference is they became mainstream because their effectiveness was more than just anecdotal.
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.
Alternative medicine is *not* the Open Source
Software of the medical world - it's the Pets.com
of the medical world.
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.
That's fine, but theories are our BEST GUESSES of how the universe works. If there really is a better law, please publish it, and let others be the judge.
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
For instance, they entirely reject the idea of homeopathic medicine. What they neglect to mention is the hundreds of studies proving the effectiveness of this treatment for everything from hangnails to brain tumors.
Because hundreds of kooks claiming shit in unscientific ways isn't the same as Scientific studies using rigorous methods to discover the nature of reality?
You can claim studies with proof as all you want, but until you really and truly embrace the Scientific method, and show results that a reproducible in double-blind studies that aren't equivalent to placebo control groups, you're going to continue to be laughed at. You remind me of the Christian Scientists who continue to claim to have scientific proof showing the flood and the Genesis creation story.
I encourage everyone to bookmark James Randi's web site as a great source of information for the scientifically mind skeptic.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
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!
I take EXTREME issue with the idea that there hae been HUNDREDS of "studies"..where studies means an FDA approved double blind clinical test.
For the rest you you out there who think hemeopathic medicine is for real(let's not get into whether or not its safe)..please check this article
out
Why don't the homeopathic remedy manufacturers go thuugh a series of FDA clinical studies to be come FDA certified drugs? If this stuff actually works...why are the remedy manufactures using a loop hole in FDA statues and marketing this stuff as herbal suppliments and not as effictive drugs. I'll tell you why...these remedies would not be found to be proven effective for most of the things word of mouth advertising claims. Oh yeah I'm sure hidden in many of the remedies being pushed at the super crunky health food store down the road from me will contain something that helps prevent or cure one or two specific illnesses. But we can't be sure until they actually conduct FDA trials and get FDA certification. And quite frankly taking this stuff can be DANGEROUS...especially if you are on ANY type of real drugs. homeopathic remedies don't have to do any sort of drug interaction testing. Is this stuff safe for a healthy person to take...probably...there is a long track record of other ignorant people taking this stuff without dying. But is it safe if you are also taking ANY modern scientificly researched medications? No way. Don't mix medications with out talking to the docters who gave you the idea to take the medications..even herbals can interfere with how modern FDA approved prescription or over the counter drugs work
This is WHY we have the FDA...if something is an effective drug for a certain illness...the FDA is there to test and certify that. If you are taking any medicine (no matter how ancient it is) sold by a company and placed on retail shelves...you should DEMAND that that they get FDA approval certifying that what they are selling you really works for what you think it does. There is a reason the homeopathic remedies in the store don't actually make specific claims to help any specific illness.
I can understand desperate people taking experimental drugs for live threatening illnesses. But to sell this stuff over the counter without making any specific claims on the label...and letting word of mouth spin a tale of fanasticly wonderful benifits is a slap in the face to the benifits this past century as seen thanks to the explosion of the understanding of how medicines work and the great strides modern medical science have taken to improve the quality of life for those who hae access to it.
Please go back to living in your flat world, with the sun circling overhead, and take your ancient medicines with you.
-jef
3. I forgot the third premise
... Profit!
Step 3:
"The good reader is a rarer swan than the good writer."
I absolutely cannot believe the level of level 2+ comments from supposedly intelligent people here who think there's something to homeopathic and alternative therapies. Most of them obviously haven't read Park's book, nor would they probably care to.
As for homeopathy, this is a practice that relies on diluting chemicals or extracts in water until there's no possibility of that chemical being in the liquid administered, relying on the "water memory" of the chemical for efficacy. Despite never having been shown to be efficacious in double-blinded clinical trials, it's ridiculous from the view of chemistry, physics, and what we know of the universe, due to a little problem called Avogadro's number (about 6.3x10^23, the number of molecules in one mole of a substance). Each of these serial dilutions of extracts causes the concentration to descend so far below avogadro's number that there is no chemical in what is administered. Park demonstrates in the book, using simple high school chemistry (which obviously many here are having difficulty remembering) that homeopathy, as practiced by the homeopathic industry, is simply the drinking of water.
It all has to do with a little something known as proof of efficacy, the most important part of any clinical trial. 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."
People, there is medicine and there is quackery. The double-blind clinical trial is the only way of distinguishing between the two, and even then conditions have to be constructed carefully to insure accurate results. Thank God the FDA doesn't rely on the anecdotal evidence of family members, the testimonials of paid spokespeople, or the promises of the herbal supplement industry.
The FDA was created to help people see through all this snake oil & empty promises, but now, through exemptions for "herbal supplements" pushed through congress, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, we have a renaissance of this sort of lies and deception of the populace. Unlike homeopathic remedies, herbal supplements many times do have powerful agents in them. Only because of their designation as a food and not a drug, they get around FDA requirements for purity, consistency, and efficacy. Because of widely varying concentrations of agents including ephedrine and hormones, and a level of quality that runs the gamut due to a complete lack of quality control, we have a multibillion-dollar industry whose products have been reported to cause strokes, heart disease and liver damage. In one report in the LA Times last month it was reported that the makers of an herbal supplement in Utah were adding crystal meth to their weight loss product, causing a spate of strokes & heart conditions in middle-aged people before being caught & shut down.
It's a tragedy, and it's a needless danger created because the average person has little more than an elementary school level of understanding of science. And I can't believe that so many of you are gullible enough to be taken in by these hucksters. Please, read and study before putting drugs in your body that aren't approved by the FDA.
The only tool you've got against psychosis is experience.
(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.
If homeopathic medicine doesnt work, and its just the placebo effect, then how come vets use it successfully to treat animals?
Because many diseases go away on their own? If you want sceptics to find it interesting, then put it through a scienetific, double-blind test. There are too many cases where something looked good and bombed the double-blind test. If we should throughly test a new medical technology that makes sense, then we should demand at least as much testing on a new medical technology that breaks the laws of physics.
Not everyone in medical research is out on a vendetta to disprove Alternative Medicine.
That's the problem - everything from homeopathy and "crystal healing", to herbs, low-fat diets and massage therapy, is classified as "alternative" when compared to industry-standard cut 'n' drug practices[0].
Some "alternative" therapies (herbs, massage, acupuncture[1]) have plausable physiological mechanisms. Of course, not all therapies in these categories have the effects that are sometimes claimed for them; but the idea that eating a plant, getting rubbed, or being pricked with needles can have definite effects on the flesh should not be surprising to anyone.
Others (such as many ch'i/ki/energy therapies that involve interaction between the pracitioner and the patient) have a more psychosomatic[2] action - disease and healing have a larger psychological and sociological component than we often think. Unfortunately sometimes practioners of these therapies focus their explanations on mystical energies or somesuch, and skeptical investigators often focus on these deficient explanations rather than on the question of whether the patient obtains relief.
I practice reiki. I've found it effective, on myself and others, for minor physical and emotional disturbances. But I believe it works though mild bodywork, the physiological reaction to touch, and the powerful healing effect of ritual, and not by mystical energy flowing into my crown chakra - but still, the best way to obtain the necessary state of mind is to think about mystical energy flowing into my crown chakra. It's sort of like what ESR talks about in "Dancing with the Gods". As he puts it,
Another category of "alternative" therapies would be those that are completely self-activated placebos. Homoepathy would seem to fit here. (However, be aware that many remedies marketed as homoepathic do contain enough active material to have an effect, and should really be classified as herbal.) Some may be presented by believers, some ("psychic surgery") may be presented by con men.
Finally there are some that not only don't work, but are actively unhealthy.
It's a pretty broad range of practices to be lumped under one label.
([0]Which certainly have their place. If my body gets majorly damaged, please take me to the local trauma center and drug and cut me as appropriate. However, when all you have is a scalpel, everyone looks like a surgical candidate...)
([1] Speaking strictly of endorphin release and nerve stimulation, not meridians of ch'i, which would fall into the next category.)
([2] Which means "mind-body", not "it's all in the mind".)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
He has a point. Much as I hate to say it, humans are ill-suited for space exploration and should stay here.
Anyone attempting to justify human spaceflight on economic or scientific grounds will run against the inevitable conclusion: robots can do it much better and much more cheaply than we can.
But that's basically irrelevant. Regardless of the economic arguments, as long as there is an opportunity to go, there will be people who want to do it. It is a significant part of human nature to explore the unknown and push the frontiers -- there's no economic or scientific reason to climb mountains, cross the Antarctic, or anything similar. Exploration of all kinds -- and space exploration in particular -- galvanize the entire human imagination in ways that very little else on Earth does. Why else would people be lining up to follow Dennis Tito's example in blowing a large fraction of their personal wealth -- not to mention putting their lives at significant risk -- just to see what Earth looks like from orbit?
Personally, I think that if launch costs could be reduced by a factor of 10, we would see nonprofit, private organizations conducting space exploration with corporate sponsorship, in the same way that other contemporary exploration activities occur today ...
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
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.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
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.
-- the most controversial site on the Web