Talk:Voodoo Science

Opening heading

Does Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms　apply to this term?--ZayZayEM 03:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Warning Signs

The "Warning Signs" section appears to be a summary of a separate article rather than the Voodoo Science book, and does not use the term. Does it belong here? Artw (talk) 01:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Feel free to split out the general stuff if desired. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

---

Voodoo science → Voodoo Science – Uncle Ed (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

This article is almost exclusively about Robert L. Park's book. The term "voodoo science" doesn't seem to have gained as much currency as, say, "cargo cult science". I vote we move it back to Voodoo Science and use it to explain the ideas in the book. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose: The nominator may be right that this book is the main user of the term, but I would still rather it be consistent with pathological science, junk science, cargo cult science, etc. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment shouldn't the book be in a separate article? Say at "Voodoo Science" ? 65.94.45.160 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, actually that's a good point, CWenger. So how about we move the article to Voodoo Science (book), and then put anything that's not related to Park's book back into Voodoo science? --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a very logical solution, although I think the book should be at Voodoo Science and the topic at Voodoo science. I remember seeing a Wikipedia policy somewhere that says a common and proper noun with the same name but different capitalization (aside from the first letter) is acceptable. And if there is not enough content to sustain the latter, it can be deleted. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If this is indeed the case we can cancel the move request and transfer the book-related content to Voodoo Science. Unless perhaps there are concerns about keeping the history of Voodoo science at Voodoo Science (because, as you note, the article is currently predominately about the book)? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but Voodoo Science (2 big letters) redirects to Voodoo science (1 big letter), or I would have been bold and done the move already. How do we get an admin to handle this for us? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure. Maybe post a comment at WT:RM? –CWenger (^ • @) 01:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Park's book, his views, and how people view him

I have begun making this article about Park's book Voodoo Science, rather than about the general concept which his (?) neologism tries to cover. I've also removed references to Park as a scientific skeptic and space-station opponent, as the only reason I can think of putting those in would be to disparage his reputation.

In some controversies, calling a scientist a "skeptic" is the same as saying that he doesn't accept proven scientific facts or principles. Ironically, the concept of scientific skepticism means just the opposite: not accepting new unproven scientific claims, and for most scientists this sort of skepticism is the norm. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that saying Robert Park was critical of the International Space Station was meant as a smear. Park argued that the science planned for the International Space Station was not important enough to justify its cost. Anyway I have restored the bit about the International Space Station and the reference to the New York Times book review. Cardamon (talk) 07:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the section 'negative remarks about the author' as it wasn't sourced (frankly, it looked like an effort to disparage the author), and despite what Uncle Ed says above, I don't think 'skeptic' is usually a negative description. Indeed, many people self-describe as skeptics; I'm not sure if Professor Park does, but it does seem to be a neutral and accurate description of him, and so he's in Category:American skeptics. For similar reasons, I've added this article to Category:Scientific skepticism. Robofish (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviews

I will be creating a "reception" section with reviews of Voodoo Science on the article. These are the following reviews I have found so far:

• William Booth. (1988). Voodoo Science. Science. New Series. Vol. 240, No. 4850. pp. 274-277.
• Rachel Hays. (2001). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park. The American Biology Teacher. Vol. 63, No. 2. p. 140.
• Malcolm J. Sherman. (2000). Exposing Fools Gladly. American Scientist. Vol. 88, No. 5. pp. 461-462
• S. Elizabeth Bird. (2002). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park. Human Biology. Vol. 74, No. 4. pp. 621-623
• Kenneth R. Foster. (2000). Unreal Science. Science. New Series, Vol. 288, No. 5471. p. 1595
• Bruce V. Lewenstein. (2004). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Isis. Vol. 95, No. 2. p. 341

If anyone knows of any others then please add them here. Thanks. Goblin Face (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I added my own review, published in Times Higher Education, which I trust is considered a RS, thereby boosting the number of negative reviews from 1 to 2. I also changed 'Alcock' to 'Park' (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voodoo_Science&oldid=621245230#Reception) in the comment on the Rachel Hays review, assuming that was an error, as the way it read originally would not make sense for a section on the reception of Park's book. If it was indeed Alcock who said what is quoted there, then the text needs clarification. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, THE was originally called the Times Higher Education Supplement, but I guess it is not unreasonable to use the present name rather than the one at the time in the article. --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for fixing the Alcock mistake. Most reviews for Voodoo Science have been positive but regarding negative reviews there is also one from Eugene Mallove who was a notable cold fusion proponent. The review was published in a fringe magazine known as Infinite Energy [1] but as expected this is not a reliable source. Goblin Face (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that (unlike JSE) it is fringe, and it has rather gone downhill since its original editor Gene Mallove was killed. --Brian Josephson (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Box needed

71.80.203.159 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)