| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images?
|
Park is well-acquainted with voodoo science in all its forms. Since 1982, he has headed the Washington, D.C., office of the American Physical Society, and he has carried the flag for scientific rationality through cold fusion, homeopathy, "Star Wars," quantum healing, and sundry attempts to repeal the laws of thermodynamics. Park shows why a "disproportionate share of the science seen by the public is flawed" (because shaky science is more likely to skip past peer review and head straight for the media), and he gives a good tour of recent highlights in Voodoo. He has a rare ability to poke holes compassionately, without excoriating those taken in by their fondest wishes. Park is less forgiving of scientists (especially Edward Teller) when he thinks they've fallen down on the job, a job that should include helping the public separate the scientific wheat from the voodoo chaff. --Mary Ellen Curtin --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.
My complaints with the book basically boil down to two primary concerns - its pace and structure, and Park's tone. The book jumps around so much it's almost impossible to read. Park's style is to begin with an anecdote, then say "before we look at that, let's investigate the science behind it", which in turn leads to another example, and ad infinitum. Several chapters later he may or may not return to the example he started with, and by then you've forgotten the details. Far too many chapters and paragraphs begin with "fifteen years later..." or "ten years before that..." Contrast this with a popular science writer like Carl Sagan, who was a master at explaining the science behind his examples without losing the reader.
But my biggest disappointment with the book is Park's condescending tone, especially as it relates to the wonder behind science. Writers such as Sagan or Michael Shermer allow us to question bad science while empathizing with the reasons that attract people to it. It's that understanding that helps us counter pseudoscience without alienating. For example, Sagan, in <i>The Demon-Haunted World</i>, captures his skepticism about God while simultaneously sharing an overwhelming desire to see his loved ones again, to want an afterlife to be real while knowing it probably isn't.
Park, on the other hand, attacks bad (or just impractical) science in a detached, holier-than-thou manner. His reasoning is strong, but he's missing too much of the argument. In one example, he attacks the manned space program as impractical and expensive without so much as acknowledging the wonder and imagination that drives us to send humans, not just machines, into the skies. He almost makes you feel guilty for loving the Apollo program. It's that wonder and a love of science that makes Sagan so readable and this book so disappointing.
|