FACTOID # 146: About one-quarter of all nations drive on the left-hand-side of the road. Most of them are former British colonies.
 
 Home   Encyclopedia   Statistics   Countries A-Z   Flags   Maps   Education   Forum   FAQ   About 
 
WHAT'S NEW
RECENT ARTICLES
More Recent Articles »
 

SEARCH ALL

FACTS & STATISTICS    Advanced view

Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 

 

(* = Graphable)

 

 


Encyclopedia > Voodoo science

Voodoo Science, another term for pseudoscience, was popularized in a book of the same title (ISBN 0195147103) written in 2001 by Robert L. Park.


Park, a physics professor and outspoken scientific skeptic, outlines his seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudoscientific and analyzes beliefs in popular culture and the media with a skeptical eye.


The term has been used by other authors, but it is most closely associated with Robert L. Park.


Park's seven warning signs are:

  1. The discoverer makes his claim directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
  2. The discoverer claims that a conspiracy is trying to suppress the discovery.
  3. The claimed effect is so weak that it can hardly be distinguished from noise.
  4. Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
  5. Ancient beliefs are cited in support of the new claim.
  6. The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
  7. The discovery requires a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.

See also


  Results from FactBites:
 
ISTPP: A Rebuttal to Voodoo Science (2917 words)
He explains that science is supposed to show the way to resolving controversy, by taking recourse to experimentation.
Despite his lip service to the cause of objective science, Park appears to feel the hypothesis of Hagelin’s study is ridiculous on its face, and that no serious investigation of the claim is necessary.
Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud.
The Voodoo Sciences (3596 words)
However much our Chief Voodoo Advisor protested that his work was scientific, we’d demand some kind of track record, some evidence that his predictions might once in a while come true; while we impose no such burdens on economists, which is just as well, since their track record is one of universally dismal failure.
This gap is exacerbated to the extent that either scientists or humanists believe there is scientific value in the “social sciences.” In my judgment there is very little science in the “social sciences,” and the use of the word “science” to describe these disciplines is generally either mendacious or farcical.
I would be far more willing to believe that the two cultures could coexist, however, were it not for the contamination of the “social sciences,” which pose as sciences to the humanists, and humanities to the scientists, but which are not in fact much good as either.
  More results at FactBites »


 

COMMENTARY     


Share your thoughts, questions and commentary here
Your name
Your comments
Please enter the 5-letter protection code

Want to know more?
Search encyclopedia, statistics and forums:

 


Lesson Plans | Student Area | Student FAQ | Reviews | Press Releases |  Feeds | Contact
The Wikipedia article included on this page is licensed under the GFDL.
Images may be subject to relevant owners' copyright.
All other elements are (c) copyright NationMaster.com 2003-5. All Rights Reserved.
Usage implies agreement with terms.