. . . we cannot predict the future exactly.
—R. P. Feynman
We cannot too carefully recognize that science started with the organization of ordinary experiences.
—A. N. Whitehead
Introduction
A combination of mineral oil, a small percent of beef fat (<1 percent usually), red pepper, camphor, and turpentine was sold as a liniment to unsuspecting customers who were desperate to cure whatever ailed them. Simply, it was advertised as a universal cure-all for all human and animal ills. This fraudulent liniment of questionable medical value did not contain one drop of snake oil but became known to all as just that, snake oil. Today, the term snake oil has come to refer to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, someone who knowingly sells fraudulent goods or who is a fraud, charlatan, or quack, is known as a snake oil salesman (see figure 5.1). In the following, we provide a modern example of a snake oil salesman almost without equal . . . you be the judge.
Figure 5.1 Snake Oil Salesman.
Snake Oil by Any Other Name Is . . .
The applause hoots and shouts were thunderous and continuous while camera bulbs popped and television cameras rolled. The presenter stood tall on the stage, dignified in demeanor and appearance, taking in the adoration he told himself he so richly deserved. The ever-present smile with perfectly implanted white teeth shone through like the perfect spotlight drenching his perfect presence in halo-like light. Of course, the halo-like appearance was accentuated by his $3,000 snow-white suit, with matching shirt and tie, and the coiffed snowy hair that in volume and density certainly matched that of disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (Blago). It was a hairstyle psychologists might characterize as a sign of narcissistic personality disorder (and in the presenter’s case, they’d be absolutely correct). On the left lapel of that flawless suit rested the perfectly white flower, of course. Ah, and we must not forget the ubiquitous pink ribbon, signifying his absolute support for the fight against breast cancer. The presenter had a soft spot for women—all women.
He scanned the audience of 3,655 souls (or as P. T. Barnum might comment, 3,655 suckers—the presenter preferred to call them his “guppies”). Quick of mind, the presenter was just as quick in calculating 3,655 attendees multiplied times the $15 entrance fee ($54,825). Not quite what he was really worth, he told himself, but a good start to what would be a very profitable evening. As the frigid green eyes in his handsome, smiling, charismatic face swept the audience in front of him, it was the women that held his momentary interest. He made a mental note of which of those beauties he would seduce later.
“Standing room only tonight,” the presenter told himself. “Heck, why not . . . they are here because of the promise . . . the promise and hope that we all have . . . and when offered, none will be able to turn it down or turn away. Geezus! Thank you Lord, for making so many gullible idiots (guppies) for me to fleece! Amen.”
The applause seemed interminable. Finally, after at least a minute of steady clapping, hooting, hollering, yelling, and gleeful laughing, the greedy, shallow, middle-aged, philandering presenter motioned them back in their seats and convinced them to settle in and hear what he had to say.
Before he began his standard presentation, a large, round happy face flashed onto the oversized movie screen behind him. When you are going to rip someone off, and con them into believing, hell, why not be happy about it? The presenter had a thing about happiness—his own, not anyone else’s.
He looked around the overcrowded auditorium, and stood smiling, taking it all in. He was sure this momentary pause mesmerized the audience, increasing their sharp excitement. He spoke into the microphone he held in his right hand while pointing to the audience with the foot-long gold-clad scepter in his left hand (a scepter he personally designed and adorned with a miniature golden crown at one end). Those first words and that Darth Vader-like deep, penetrating voice brought them to total silence, full attention, and made many a heart quiver.
The presenter had the gift; the golden voice that no one could ignore, and a charismatic presence that you had to experience to believe. The combination of his appearance, his manner and that voice reached out and grabbed you, whether you wanted it or not, harnessing your full, undivided attention.
Of course, his message wasn’t exactly boring, either. When someone so plausible, so golden, so utterly believable offers someone, anyone, everyone, eternal life, how would you expect them to react?
He always began by shouting out the same question.
“Are you happy to be here?”
Maximum applause and a resounding “Yes, we are!”
“Are you excited about the possibility of living your life disease free?”
Again, “Yes, we are!”
“Can anyone think of anything more terrible, more evil, more despicable, than illness, disease, disability, autism, or some other disease causing suffering for a helpless, aging, adult or an innocent child?”
In unison they answered, “No, we can’t!”
Knowing he was winding them to the frenzy-level he wanted (the maximum level of donation), he went on “Can anyone think of why any of us should have to suffer through life with illnesses, disease, disabilities, or aging?”
“NO!” they chorused.
“Then let’s stop death in its tracks! Let’s throw all those wrinkles to the wind! Or better yet, give all the wrinkles and dying to child molesters and women beaters and animal haters . . . let those evil-doers shrivel up and feed the worms!”
He paused again, lifting his head earnestly to the rafters. “Thank God for science and scientists!” Then he directed that powerful, penetrating gaze back to the crowd hanging on his every word, and continued. “My research team is just a few months away . . . they tell me the Ray will not only cure whatever ails you . . . including diabetes (audience roars approval), kidney stones (still roaring), autism (roar getting louder), Alzheimer’s . . . I’ve been told Rayology will cure every commie disease known to man! . . . Moreover, Rayology is a fountain of youth and will take us all back to our mid-twenties . . . ah, physically that is.”
Now the approving roar was so loud the rafters in the ancient auditorium were starting to rattle.
Finally, in his best Elmer Gantry manner, he shouted “Do you B-E-L-I-E-V-E?”
It’s a good thing the fire marshal and building and codes people weren’t around; the auditorium was rocking under the foot stomping and the resounding “YES!”
“Now here is the plan. To speed things up . . . we will bypass normal peer-review procedures on my new and wonderful discovery and we will rent the Alamo Dome and place the Ray machine on the main floor, and allow as many of the faithful to get a dose of the Ray . . . then all their problems will be over. . . .”
The roar was deafening.
When it quieted down a bit (below 85 decibels), the presenter continued: “Look, people, we are going to do all this two months from today . . . but we need your help to make it happen. This kind of progress doesn’t come without a price: my science team is on the brink of success. Don’t let the lack of a few dollars hold us back! . . . And when you make a donation, and please, we need your donations to make this happen—please leave your phone number so we can let you know the time and the exact date of your rejuvenation.”
And with that, the presenter stepped out of that halo-like spotlight and down to the front of the stage, where, when he took the hand of the gorgeous redhead who’d been eyeballing him the whole time he slipped the business card with his hotel and room number scrawled on the back. With his face in full-smile-mode, he performed the necessary, but distasteful contact with the populous, and he walked out of the auditorium through the crowded house, shaking every hand, his arm around every offered shoulder, with the sound of ka-ching! ringing in his head.
Analysis
The preceding case study, vignette, or whatever you wish to call it has been a favorite of our college 300-level science students from day one. We usually present this short account to the students early in our introductory courses. We have found that not only do the students like to ponder this story, but they also enjoy commenting about it both in written analysis and in oral discussions. We have found their analyses penetrating, scathing, and humorous.
The jury is still out, however, on definitively defining what the previous story is really about. Some say it is a classic portrayal of the conflict between religion and science. Others find that religion is used to sell science and vice versa. We will leave the final judgment on this to you.
One thing is certain, however; when it comes to describing the presenter—at least in characteristic form—the verdict is in. Typically the presenter is described as a greedy, shallow, and philandering evangelist who lives a life of hypocrisy, greed, and self-indulgence. Not much to argue about with this assessment.
When we ask the students if they think the presenter is a con man, pitchman, fraud, or huckster (just a petty hawker), they almost all agree that he is all of the above—and more.
It is interesting to note that many students find it hard to believe that 3,650 people could be as gullible as portrayed in the story. Well, we can only say that we are not psychologists and can’t explain the behavior and actions of other people. However, we can suggest that if you doubt there could be at least 3,650 gullible people (we apologize, “guppies”) out there in la-la land then we suggest you might want the opinion of an expert. Maybe a Bernie Madoff, Adolf Hitler, Jim Jones (recall the 900 who committed suicide on Jones’ command), or someone of their infamy can explain it; we can’t.
We should also point out that we are not experts on religion. We are knowledgeable enough to acknowledge, however, that without a doubt, from the beginning of religious thought and scientific discoveries there has been an ongoing conflict between the two. Does religion result in science or does science result in religion—or does one have anything to do with the other? Again, we will leave this argument to the experts. We discuss the conflict between religion and science later in the text.
Rayology—What Kind of Science Is That?
The title of this section is the question our students most often ask. We simply explain that Rayology as described by the presenter does not exist. Further, a magic ray that can cure every “commie” disease known to man does not exist. Moreover, a magic ray that is the fountain of youth does not exist.
Intuitively, students (along with ourselves) know the presenter’s claims to be false, but wish them to be true—that there was some type of magical ray that would cure every illness suffered by man and animal on earth; that would return 65-year-old men and women back to the physical specimens they were when they were 25 old. We all wish for this. We know the presenter’s claims about Rayology providing humankind with the ability to heal all and render wrinkles things of the past is patently false, but we also know science. We know that with science nothing is impossible—nothing but imagination, knowledge, experience, ability, and persistence prevent us from curing all diseases. The cure to every disease is out there—we just have to find it. The fountain of youth? We are scientists, not dreamers (but like you, we do dream; gee, if we were only twenty-five again).
Fast-forward to reality for a moment. Another question we ask our students (and therefore we are asking you): What kind of science is Rayology? Keep in mind that no matter what we term the presenters’ Science of Rayology, the impact of such gibberish on real science is not good. Again, we ask our students to describe in no more than a couple of words what the presenter’s Rayology science is or is all about. The answers we commonly receive include
• Pathological science
• Junk science
• Flim-flam
• Bogus science
• Pseudoscience
• Bad science
• Fringe science
• Press-conference science
• Voodoo science
• False science with seduction in mind
Let’s take a closer look at each one of these terms to see if any or all are suitable descriptors of Rayology and the presenter’s message.
Pathological Science
The term pathological science was first used by Irving Langmuir, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, during a 1953 colloquium at the knolls Research Laboratory. Park (2000) points out that Langmuir basically stated that “pathological science is the science of things that aren’t so.” Moreover, Langmuir (1953) summarized pathological science as the process of “tricking people into false results . . . by subjective effects, wishful thinking or threshold interactions.” Simon (2002) lists pathological science as one of the practices pretending to be science. Bauer (2002) stated although Langmuir never intended the term to be rigorously defined, he defined it loosely as a psychological process in which a scientist, originally conforming to the scientific method unconsciously veers from that method, and begins a pathological process of wishful data interpretation. Some characteristics of pathological science are as follows:
• The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.
• The effect is such that many measurements are necessary because of very low statistical significance of the results.
• There are claims of great accuracy.
• Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.
• Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.
• The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.
Some examples of pathological science can be found in the list below.
• N-Rays—In 1903, Rene-Prosper Blondlot, a renowned French physicist claimed to have found a new invisible radiation. He used prisms and lenses made of aluminum to refract these rays, thus producing an invisible spectrum. Many scientists of Blondlot’s era claimed to have reproduced the same results from their own experiments. However, not everyone bought into Blondlot’s findings. Another physicist, Robert W. Wood, decided to visit Blondlot’s lab, to observe the N-rays for himself. Before Blondlot’s assistant could demonstrate N-rays, Wood had vandalized the ray producer. Wood then asked to see the experiment run as usual. The experiment was repeated and Blondlot reported the same results—despite the fact that Wood had covertly sabotaged the N-ray apparatus. Wood proved that N-rays do not exist. Blondlot was self-deceived (Randi 1982). Even though Blondlot was wrong (and other scientists believed his assumptions and findings) the good news is that there are other scientists around who will eventually prove those incorrect assumptions and findings wrong. We relate this incident here because it points to the dangers of error introduced by experimental bias. Again, as mentioned earlier, the scientist must stick to the tenets of the scientific method, using the scientific toolbox, to ensure his or her experiments and findings are legitimate. When you get right down to it, this is what science is all about—that is, listen, observe, absorb, study, retest, and then verify or disprove.
• Martian canals—In September 1877, Giovanni Schiaparelli, an Italian astronomer, used a telescope with a sufficient level of resolution to produce the first detailed map of Mars. These maps notably contained features he called canals, which were thought to have been created by some type of lifeforms, but later shown to be an optical illusion. The point is it was not until the 1960s (and various space probes) that Martian canals were shown to be nonexistent.
• Water memory—In 1988, Jacques Benveniste speculated that water is capable of retaining a “memory” of substances once dissolved in it to arbitrary dilution (Maddox, 1988). Dayenas et al. (1988) point out that Benveniste claimed that to accomplish this effect the water must be shaken at each stage of a serial dilution (i.e., the stepwise dilution of a substance in solution). Benveniste proposed this concept to explain the purported therapeutic powers of homeopathic remedies, which are prepared by serially diluting aqueous solutions to such a high degree that even a single molecule of the original solute is highly unlikely to remain in each final preparation. Double blind replications of Benveniste’s experiments have failed to reproduce the results, and the concept is not accepted by the scientific community (Ball, 2007). The point is that it has been conclusively demonstrated that liquid water maintains ordered networks of molecules for no longer than a small fraction of a nanosecond (Cowan et al., 2005).
• Cold fusion—In 1989, Fleischmann and Pons proposed a nuclear fusion process of unknown mechanism to explain a group of their disputed experimental results. This also raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy (Browne, 1989). Specifically, they reported producing nuclear fusion in a table top experiment involving electrolysis of heavy water on a palladium (Pd) electrode (Voss 1999). They reported excess heat production of a magnitude they asserted would defy explanation except in terms of nuclear processes. They further reported measuring small amounts of nuclear reaction byproducts, including neutrons and tritium (Fleischmann & Pons 1989). Two panels convened by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) did not recommend a dedicated federal program for cold fusion research and cold fusion is now considered to be an example of pathological science (Labinger and Weininger 2005; DOE 2004).
• Polywater—D. L. Rousseau (1992) used polywater as a classic example of pathological science. Polywater was a form of water which appeared to have a much higher boiling point and much lower freezing point than normal water. Many articles were published on the subject, and research on polywater was done around the world with mixed results. In time, it was determined that many of the properties of polywater could be explained by biological contamination and when more rigorous cleaning of glassware and experimental controls were introduced, polywater could no longer be produced.
Before moving on, it is important to review a summary statement on the subject:
In the cases listed above, there is no dishonesty involved. Rather, people are tricked into false results by a lack of understanding about the harm human beings can do to themselves by being led astray by subjective effects, wishful thinking, or threshold interactions. These are examples of pathological science. Each of these things attracted a great deal of attention and had hundreds of papers published on them. Some of them lasted for 15 to 20 years before gradually dying away (Langmuir, 1989).
Junk Science
The term junk science (often counterposed with sound science), may convey a pejorative connotation and was noted in a 1985 United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) report as follows: “The use of . . . invalid scientific evidence (commonly referred to as ‘junk science’) has resulted in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current spate of credible scientific or medical knowledge.” Thus, the term junk science is commonly used in legal disputes that brand an advocate’s claims about scientific data, research, or analyses as spurious. Note that the term junk science does not have an agreed-upon definition or significant currency within the scientific community; it is primarily a term of political debate.
Flim-Flam
Flim-flam by any other name could be called a confidence trick, confidence game, bunko, con, gaffle, grift, hustle, scam, scheme, swindle, and so forth. No matter what it is called, James Randi (1982), a magician and skeptic, likened Flim-Flam to the paranormal, occult, and pseudoscience. Randi points out that some scientists and the media are too willing to promote various topics such as psychics, ESP, unicorns, and several other claims dealing with delusions without skepticism and proper expertise.
Pseudoscience
An inherently pejorative term, pseudoscience is commonly defined as a practice, belief or methodology that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology. It’s not part of the scientist’s toolbox or the result of following the tenets of the scientific method (O’Neill, 2008; Astronomical Society of Pacific, 2003). Pseudoscience is characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. One of the huge problems with pseudoscience is that it is often difficult to distinguish it from non-mainstream “science” (Carroll, 2003).
There are numerous examples of pseudoscience—too numerous to list and describe in this text. However, because we feel it is important to understand what pseudoscience is and to be able to distinguish true science from pseudoscience, we list and briefly explain a few of the more common or well-known examples. Keep in mind that some of the subjects listed below may be questioned aspects of otherwise legitimate fields of research, or have legitimate ongoing scientific research associated with them. An example of this is hypnosis. Some proposed explanations for hypnosis have been criticized for being pseudoscientific, but the phenomenon is generally accepted as real and scientific explanations exist. Keep in mind that there are critics of this view, however. For instance, hypnosis is commonly used to refresh the memory—to recall events from memory. It is important to note, however, that prestigious organizations such as the American Medical Association point out that memories surfacing under hypnosis are less reliable than those recalled without it. Moreover, Kaplan (1989) warns that there is a “high likelihood that the beliefs of the hypnotist will be communicated to the patient and incorporated into what the patient believes to be memories, often with strong conviction.” Finally, Carroll (2003) asks, “Why do so many people, including those who write psychology textbooks, or dictionary and encyclopedia entries, continue to perpetuate the mythical view of hypnosis as if it were established scientific fact?” We are incapable of answering this question. We leave the answer to others. Some examples of pseudoscience include the following:
• 2012 Phenomenon or Millenarianism—a present-day cultural meme (item or idea) proposing that cataclysmic, transformative, or apocalyptic events would occur in the year 2012. The forecast was based primarily on what was claimed to be the end-date of the Mesoamerican Long Count (Mayan culture) calendar, which by most proposed alignments with the Gregorian calendar is presented as lasting 5,125 years and as terminating on December 21 or 23, 2012. Doomsday mechanisms were predicted to occur by means of “solar storm,” “pole shift,” catastrophic collision with an asteroid, comet, planet, or by a “galactic alignment.” The idea of a global event occurring in 2012 based on any interpretation of the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar was not substantiated by any scientific evidence and was rejected by the scientific community as pseudoscience (Sitler 2006; Defesche 2007; MacDonald 2007; O’Neill 2008). Hence, it is 2018 and obviously no event took place.
• Lunar or Full Moon Effects—“Well, there will be hell to pay tonight, we will have a full moon!” No doubt you have heard this saying or similar words along the same line. Lunar or Full Moon Effect is a theory which overlaps into sociology, psychology, and physiology suggesting that there is a correlation between a full moon and deviant behavior in human beings. Whether you believe in this alleged phenomenon or in werewolves or in Full Moon Madness and such things, it is important to point out that the Lunar Effects theory is a classic example of pseudoscience. Close scientific scrutiny over the past 30 years has shown that there is no correlation of lunar phases to human behavior (Iosif and Ballon, 2005).
• The Bermuda Triangle—the region of the Atlantic Ocean that lies between Bermuda, Puerto Rico, and Florida. Frequent disappearances and ship and aircraft disasters in this area have led to the circulation of stories of unusual natural phenomena, paranormal encounters, and interactions with extraterrestrials (Cochran-Smith, 2003). However, over time, a substantial amount of documentation has surfaced showing that a significant portion of the allegedly mysterious incidents have been inaccurately reported or embellished. It is interesting to note that numerous official agencies have stated that the number and nature of disappearances in the region is similar to any other area of ocean (Bermuda Triangle Org., 2009).
• Channeling—the communication of information to or through a person, allegedly from invisible beings, a spirit or other paranormal entity (Science and Technology 2009).
• Dowsing—sometimes called divining, doodlebugging, water witching, or water finding is the practice said to enable one to detect hidden water, metals, oil, buried treasure, golf balls, lost persons, gemstones, or other objects. Although dowsing has been in use since ancient times and is still widely practiced, the scientific evidence for its efficacy is disputed; the dowser tries to locate objects by occult means (Carroll, 2003).
• Phrenology—(Greek, phren, for “mind”; and logos, “study of”) is a now defunct pseudoscience theory stating that the personality traits of a person can be derived from the shape of the skull. Phrenological thinking was influential in 19th century psychiatry and modern neuroscience (Graham, 2001; Simpson, 2005). It is interesting to note that in some classic literature by Charlotte Brontë, her two famous Brontë sisters, Edgar Allan Poe, and Herman Melville (in Moby Dick,) many references to phrenology are made (Grayson, 2005).
• Crystal healing—is an alternative medicine technique that employees stones and crystals as healing tools. It involves the belief that crystals have healing properties. There is no scientific evidence that crystal healing has any effect. It has been called a pseudoscience. Pleasant feelings or seeming successes of crystal healing can be attributed to the placebo effect or cognitive bias (the believer wanting it to be true) (Carroll, 2003; Campion, 1993).
• Homeopathy—a form of alternative medicine that treats patients with symptoms of an illness with heavily diluted preparations which are thought to cause effects similar to the symptoms presented. Homeopathic remedies are prepared by serial dilution with shaking by forceful striking, which homeopaths term succession, after each dilution under the assumption that this increases the effect of the treatment Homeopaths call the process potentization. Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains. Studies of homeopathic practice have been largely negative or inconclusive. No scientific basis for homeopathic principles has been substantiated (Kayne and Caldwell, 2006; Goldacre, 2007; CSICOP, 2000).
• Magnet therapy—a type of alternative health practice that claims that magnetic fields have healing powers. Studies have shown that the field strength used in magnetic therapy is too low to effect any biological change, and the methods used have no scientific validity (Carroll, 2003; Park, 2000).
• Urine therapy—any of several uses of urine to prevent or cure sickness, to enhance beauty, or to cleanse the bowels; it is based on pseudoscience (Carroll, 2003; Gardner, 2001).
• Perpetual motion—characteristic of a class of proposed machines or devices that violate one of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Literally, perpetual motion refers to movement that goes on forever. More commonly, however, the term refers to any device or system that perpetually produces more energy that it consumes, resulting in a net output of energy for indefinite time. Perpetual motion has been recognized as extra-scientific since the late 18th century, but proposal and patents for such devices continue to be made to the present day (Astrosociety, 2003).
• Dianetics—L. Ron Hubbard’s pseudoscientific set of ideas and practices regarding the metaphysical relationship between the mind and the body. Hubbard purports to treat a hypothetical reactive mind by means of an E-meter, a device which Hubbard was legally forced to admit “does nothing” (Carroll, 2003; Evans, 1974).
• Pate de Foie Gras—one of the most interesting examples of pseudoscience in popular culture is the fiction short story (a scientific spoof) by Isaac Asimov about the discovery on a farm in Texas of a mutant goose that is able to lay golden eggs (literally, the goose that laid the golden eggs). The goose is capable of producing golden eggs because it has a liver capable of producing nuclear reactions (Asimov, 1956).
Bad Science
The term bad science is commonly used by those who think the so-called science they have bought into hook, line, and sinker is not what they thought it was. This topic is thoroughly digested and explained in Goldacre’s best-selling book by the same title.
Fringe Science
Fringe science is regarded as highly speculative or strongly refuted relative to plausible emerging science. Fringe science theories and ideas are often advanced by individuals either without a traditional academic science background, or by researchers outside the mainstream discipline. Friedlander (1995) points out that the general public has difficulty distinguishing between “science and its imitators,” and in some cases a “yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting pseudoscientific claims.”
Press-Conference Science
This concept describes a relatively new practice (especially since the advent of television and the Internet) of persons attempting to promote scientific findings of questionable scientific merit turning to the media for attention, especially when they are unlikely to win the approval (peer-reviewed approval) of the professional scientific community. A notorious example of this practice occurred in 1989 when Pons and Fleischmann held a press conference to report they had successfully achieved cold fusion with a simple device. Their story was widely reported in the press but was later debunked. Unfortunately, the later debunking does little to erase the damage done; it causes the credibility of scientists and science in general to suffer—science and its practitioners get a bad name.
Voodoo Science
Voodoo Science is research that falls short of adhering to the scientists’ toolbox and/or the scientific method (i.e., a neologism) popularized in the book Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park. Even though the term appears in an earlier article title by W. Booth (1988), “Voodoo Science,” and even earlier in a 1984 U.S. Government report “Oversight Hearing on the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,” it remains most closely associated with Park. Park is an outspoken scientific skeptic. He has developed seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific. He also analyzes beliefs in popular culture and the media with a skeptical eye. Park’s seven warning signs are nearly identical to warning signs discussed by Irving Langmuir in 1953. The seven warning signs are (Park 2000):
1. Discoverers use science by press conference to directly announce their discoveries, rather than through fellow scientists.
2. Discoverers claim various people have tried to suppress the discovery.
3. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
4. The discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
5. True believers cite ancient tradition in support of the new claim.
6. The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
7. The discovery requires a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
The Bottom Line
After reviewing the preceding descriptors, it would not surprise us if you have chosen all of the above in describing Rayology and the presenter’s message. Based on classroom experience, we have found that questioned students usually feel that each of the listed descriptors has some element that can be applied in describing both Rayology and the presenter. However, we have also found that they most often describe the presenter’s entire scam as Voodoo Science, or a close relative thereof. The respondents simply felt that Park’s seven warning signs of Voodoo Science are applicable to the presenter and his message.
References and Recommended Reading
Asimov, I., 1956. Pate de Foie Gras. Astounding Science Fiction, September.
Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 2003. Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic’s Resource List.
.
Ball, P. 2007. Here lies one whose name is writ in water. www.nature.com/news/2007/07/070806/full,news070806-6.html (accessed October 1, 2009).
Bauer, H. H., 2002. Pathological science is not scientific misconduct (nor is it pathological). International Journal for Philosophy of Chemistry, Vol. 8, No. 1 pp. 5.20.
Bermuda Triangle Org., 2009. Introduction; Aircraft Losses; Missing Vessels.
Boone, W., 1988. Voodoo science. Science April 15; 240(4850):274–77.
Browne, M., 1989. Physicists Debunk Claim of a New Kind of Fusion. New York Times. May 3.
Campion, E., 1993. Why unconventional medicine. New England Journal of Medicine 328: 282.
Carroll, R. T., 2003. The Skeptic’s Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cowan, M. L., Bruner, B. D., Huse N. et al (2005). Ultrafast memory loss and energy redistribution in the hydrogen bond network of liquid H2O. Nature 434(7030): 199–202.
CSICOP, 2000. Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Public Understanding Science Fiction and Pseudoscience.
Dayenas, E., Beauvais, F., Amara, J., Oberbaum, M. Robinson, B., Miadonna, A., Tedeschit, A., Pomeranz, B, Fortner, P., Belon, P., Sainte-Laudy, J., Poitevin, B. and Benveniste, J., 1988. Human basophil degranulation triggered by very dilute antiserum against 1gE. Nature 333:816–18.
Defesche, S., 2007, W. J. Hanegraaff, ed., The 2012 Phenomenon: A Historical and Typological Approach to a Modern Apocalyptic Mythology. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Evans, C. R., 1974. Cults of Unreason. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Fleischman, M., Pons, S., 1989. Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry 261(2A): 301–8.
Friedlander, M. W., 1995. At the Fringes of Science. Boulder, CD: Westview Press.
Gardner, M., 2001. Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Goldacre, B., 2007. Benefits and risks of homeopathy. The Lancet 370: 1672.
Goldacre, B., 2008. Bad Science. United Kingdom: Fourth Estate.
Graham, P., 2001. Phrenology (videorecording (DVD)]: Richmond Hill, Ontario: American Home Treasures.
Grayson, E., 2005. Weird science, weirder unity: Phrenology and physiognomy in Edgar Allan Poe. Mode 1: 56–77.
Iosif A., and Ballon, B., 2005. Bad moon rising: the persistent belief in lunar connections to madness. CMAJ, 173, 1498–1500.
Kaplan, H. I., 1989. Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry. Philadelphia: Williams and Wilkins Publishers.
Kayne, S. B. & Caldwell, I. M., 2006. Homeopathic Pharmacy Theory and Practice, 2nd ed. New York: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Langmuir, L., 1989. Pathological Science. Physics Today, 42, Oct.
MacDonald, G. J., 2007. Does Maya calendar predict 2012 apocalypses? USA Today 3/27/07.
Maddox, J., 1988. When to believe the unbelievable. Nature 333(6176): 787.
O’Neill, I. 2008. 2012: No Geomagnetic Reversal. Universe Today. October 3.
Park, R. L. 2000. Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. New York: Oxford University Press.
Randi, J., 1982. Flim-Flam. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Rousseau, D. L., 1992. Case studies in pathological science. American Scientist 80 (1): 54–63.
Science and Technology (2009). Science Fiction and Pseudoscience. Accessed 10/03/09 @ http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind02/c7/c7s5.htm.
Simpson, D., 2005. Phrenology and the neurosciences: contributions of F. J. Gall and J. G. Spurzheim. ANZ Journal of Surgery. Oxford. Vol. 75.6; p. 475.
Sitler, R. K., 2006. The 2012 phenomenon: New Age appropriation of an ancient Mayan calendar. The Journal of Alternative and Emergent Religions 9(3): 24–38.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2004. Report of the Review of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions. Washington, DC: doe.gov.
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), 1985. Report of the Tort Policy Working Group on the Causes, Extent and Policy Implications of the Current Crisis in Insurance Availability and Affordability. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government printing Office.
Voss, D., 1999. Whatever happened to cold fusion? Physics World March 1, 1999.