Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science

As a fan of Robert Park's book "Voodoo Science", I was pleased when this book came out. Park provides a enjoyable reading experience for the layman, touching upon various flashpoints of the conflict between science and pseudoscience, adroitly incorporating lucid, well-reasoned arguments, and his own personal experiences, told in a reader-friendly prose that avoids excesses of technicality, without succumbing to attempts to dumbing down the reader. While he is hardly the first to espouse the importance of naturalism and scientific skepticism in the topics covered, his willingness to express views that are not often heard even in the annals of skepticism, such as his views on manned spaceflight, is refreshing.

I was surprised, however, to read the Publishers Weekly review for the book here at Amazon. Offhand, I can't recall ever previously seeing negative reviews in the Editorial Reviews section, and was under the impression that that section was intended to serve the interest of the author or publisher in promoting it. Nothing wrong with learning otherwise, I suppose, since Amazon is free to do as it wishes on its site, but what surprised me (though in retrospect I suppose it shouldn't have) was the threadbare reasoning, Astroturf Logic and outright deception that PW employed in its review.

PW begins with some questionable recounting of Park's conclusions, asserting that Park cites prayer studies that "he claims are meaningless because it is impossible to measure prayer." But PW never refutes this seeming dismissal on Park's part by explaining what's wrong with it. In fact, Park doesn't just claim these studies are meaningless. He correctly explains that there is no logical reason or mechanism by which intercessory prayer should work (which is perfectly reasonable, since there isn't), and reports on the questionable nature of this study, the shady status of those who conducted (which include stints in prison for fraud), and how the study did not follow the proper standards of the Peer Review Process. This study, in fact, was debunked in the skeptical press, but PW never mentions any of this.

PW focuses the brunt of its attack on Chapter 4, "Giving Up the Ghost", in which Park argues against the existence of the soul. PW begins by complaining that Park "interprets the Bible to his own purposes". What point PW is attempting to make here is difficult to discern. All people who read the Bible, after all, attempt to interpret it as best they can. While the degree to which each reader is guided by a good faith, a provisional desire to understand the intent of its writers, human decency, and/or a tendency to bolster the less-than-enlightened biases they bring to it, interpretation of the Bible is unavoidable, even for those who claim to be literalists. One would think that any analysis of someone's interpretation of the Bible should be governed by an assessment of the interpreter's adherence to accuracy, literary and historical context, and scholarly consensus. If Park failed to do this, or even committed the sin of deriving an interpretation at odds with that of PW's reviewer, the reviewer never elaborates on how Park's understanding is false or flawed, leaving one to wonder if PW's criticism is leveled solely because Park dared to interpret it at all, as if doing so is some type of transgression in itself.

For the prospective reader actually interested in what Park said, he begins this portion of the chapter by examining how different religions differ on when a life is imbued with a soul. He points to Genesis 2:7, which he says Jews and liberal Christians cite in support of the idea that a soul is imbued when an infant draws its first breath. He follows up by observing that the fact that Adam began life as a man and not an infant illustrates how the Bible is rich with metaphors, and that people interpret these metaphors according to the diverse imaginations and biases they bring to them, before he moves onto when other religions the moment when the soul begins. The passage, therefore, is not only seemingly innocuous, as Park is making a perfectly reasonable observation in service the chapter's greater point, but ironic, given that PW is accusing Park of doing what Park flat-out *states* everyone does. Again, one wonders why or how PW disagrees with this passage, as its reviewer never says. Which part does it dispute? The accuracy of the passage? The fact that Adam first appeared as an adult? Its use of metaphors? Does PW know of anyone who does not come away from reading the Bible with interpretations? We'll never know, because PW substitutes histronics for a cogent elaboration.

Where PW does offer a more elaborate rationale for its ire toward this chapter is in its most bizarre statement: "But this chapter also shows how disjointed his arguments can be, as he jumps from the Plan B contraceptive to genes and memes to stem cells and ghosts." Read that carefully. PW is basically saying that in a 16-page chapter in which someone argues against the existence of the soul, that to employ various different elements is "disjointed". Yes, Park does touch upon these things in this chapter, and the manner in which they bear relevance is self-evident to anyone who actually reads it. Park does not merely opine that there is no such thing as a soul, but illustrates how he feels belief in it is both pervasive and harmful, and these elements appear in it for reasons that are clear:

*PLAN B: The belief that an embryo has a soul informs opposition to emergency birth control. Park reports
on how two evangelical Christian appointees of George W. Bush's to an FDA advisory panel (one of whom had
no credentials in medical science, the one of whom was trained in veterinary medicine, and who eventually
resigned after pleading guilty to conflict of interest and false reporting of information about stocks he
owned in food, beverage and medical device companies he was in charge of regulating) were responsible for
overriding a majority FDA opinion that Plan B should be made available without prescription to women.

*MEMES: In the next section of the chapter (yes, that's right, PW, authors sometimes separate chapters
into sections in order to underscore how one portion of a thesis leads into another), Park contends that
the belief in a soul at conception is just a modern-day descendant of vitalism, an idea that modern
genetics rendered scientifically obsolete, as the discovery of DNA, and its interaction with
environment, including the cultural transmission of information by memes, have answered the question of
where individual personhood comes from.

*STEM CELLS: In the next section, Park explains how in vitro fertilization practices generate copious
amounts of embryos, and how some are used to harvest embryonic stem cells, lest they merely be thrown
out, and may be a promising avenue of research. Park details how the Bush administration was accused by a
group of 60 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, of manipulating the scientific advisory
process over this matter, and dismissed two advocates of such research from the Council on Bioethics, and
replaced them with people whose only qualifications were a record of faith-based opposition to stem-cell
research.

*GHOSTS: Park then touches upon Duncan MacDougall's idea that the soul weighs 21 grams, and how that has
become a cultural meme, despite the fact that they had no scientific merit. Park uses this example and
and others to illustrate how our culture embraces the idea of a soul despite the lack of any scientific
reliability behind it. Although Park leads off this passage by mentioning reports of ghosts rising up
from dead bodies two centuries ago, which leads into MacDougall's work, this is the only appearance of the
idea of "ghosts" in the chapter, or in the book, as the word "ghost" doesn't even appear in the book's
index. PW ignores the relationship of MacDougall's idea to the modern belief in a soul, and focuses
instead on what is essentially an offhand setup, which is roughly equivalent to writing a movie review
after having seen its trailer.

At first glance, such varied ideas as Plan B, stem-cells, memes and ghosts do not appear to bear any connection, particularly when a reviewer deliberately omits the context in which they are brought up. In doing this, PW deliberately distorts Park's writing, apparently hoping that prospective readers already biased against its naturalism-driven thesis will self-satisfyingly conclude that the book's use of them is as incoherent as PW implies. Again, it is difficult not to note the irony of someone employing such deliberately incoherent reasoning in order to accuse someone of supposedly making a flawed argument.

Park himself has reported in his online What's New column that the PW reviewer was offended at his assertion that "science is the only way of knowing". As most of the criticism of books like "The God Delusion", "God is Not Great", et al., tends consist of ad hominem arguments and deliberate distortions or ignorance of their actual content, this is not very difficult to believe.

Regardless of where it appears on Amazon, reasoned, calm, intellectually honest criticism of books should not only be permitted, it should be encouraged. But this willfully mendacious rant doesn't qualify.

Park and his book deserve better.

Robert L. Park is professor of physics at the University of Maryland and author of Voodoo science: the road from foolishness to fraud.

In this brilliant book, he examines and debunks many popular illusions: intelligent design, parapsychology, spoon-bending, reincarnation, astral projections, extra-sensory perception, homoeopathy, acupuncture, magnetic healing, crystal healing, pyramid healing, life after death, the existence of souls, the efficacy of prayer, and the notions of hell and heaven. He also wittily proves that inter-stellar travel and time travel are impossible.

He shows that these are all products of wishful thinking, or of outright fraud (spoon-bending, for goodness' sake!). Some are cultural relics from a pre-scientific age, others are misunderstandings, wilful or not, of scientific advances (for example, ignorant notions of `quantum' healing). Some are superstitions learnt in childhood.

He describes how people developed randomised controlled trials so that they could sift sense from nonsense and impose checks on their perceptions. By thorough testing, we have made great progress in science, especially in medicine. He praises Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection as one of the greatest steps forward in our understanding of the world around us.
.
Using science's skills, we have moved from purging, cupping and bleeding to anaesthetics, antibiotics and surgery. We have ended smallpox and could end polio and malaria were it not for the resistance of ignorant imams and greens. We have progressed from a belief that disasters are God-given (to punish sinful mankind) to understanding how to predict and cope with disasters.

I wanted so much to like this book because, as a physics teacher myself, it bothers me how much people misunderstand science. I have come to the conclusion, however, that most scientists are completely unhelpful in improving the face of science. This book is a perfect example. Other than the fact that Dr. Park is, in fact, correct on certain points, this book is a disaster.

The reason this book is such a mistake centers on one main problem: the arrogance that it's author communicates in these pages. His disdain for people who don't believe as he does (including his "friends", the Catholic priests David O'Conner and Shaun McCarty, whom I hope he treats with more respect in real life) is palpable in every page. And his ire is not only heaped on the truly superstitious and religious, but on scientists, some of whom have degrees and awards equal to or better than his own, whose interpretations of the world don't coincide with his. They are "flawed" or "lunatics." Somehow, we must trust that Dr. Park sees more clearly. His descriptions of the science counter argument to the topics he discusses are very one-sided, even from the scientific viewpoint. He ignores or ridicules even scientific arguments that seem to refute his. (A much better book is one I recently finished: Michael Brooks' 13 Things That Don't Make Sense. The topic overlap between these books is considerable, and Brooks takes a much more balanced view, which I think makes his much more valuable.)

It's sad, really, because Dr. Park does have some good things to say, but don't let me give you the impression that I agree with everything he says. To give one example, late in the book, he compares the healing of an injured deer to his own healing from injury to illustrate that the body basically heals itself if we let it. The fact of the matter is, the body can heal itself, but not as easily as Park seems to imply. A moment's thought about increased lifespans with improved medical science puts the lie to how he dismisses people who find the miraculous in cures that science can't explain.

I could go on in this vein, but I think I've made my point. As Park says in the last line of his book, "Science is the only way of knowing--everything else is just superstition." Even if you believe this--which I don't--Park doesn't honestly live up to his own statement. He asserts as certain things that most scientists would admit are murky at best. (Again, see Brooks.) His views are scientifically fundamentalist as any Bible-thumping Christian. It's depressing.

Perhaps Park and others like him don't actually want to improve the image and understanding of science because there is a unspoken desire to be the elite in the modern world. That certainly seems to be the case with Dr. Park. I think this comes across most clearly in his subtle approval of eugenics which is quite disturbing. On pp. 64-65 he writes, "Galton's [a scientist Park admires] reputation today is tarnished, somewhat unfairly, by eugenics...The Supreme Court found eugenics laws to be constitutional, but although eugenics laws remain on the books in a number of states, they go unused today. What doomed the eugenics movement was its perversion in Hitler's Germany..." Really? Forget the fact that we know the Supreme Court often finds bad, immoral laws constitutional. The eugenics movement was not doomed by Hitler's Germany, it was doomed because is was bad science and immoral, to boot.

For those of us in the trenches actually trying to improve people's views and understanding of science, books like this are more of a hindrance than a help. This is a book that does nothing more than preach to the choir, and even some of us in the choir would find his assertions disturbing. It's frustrating that scientists who could be our best allies in the fight against superstition end up driving the moderate away. I think Dr. Park could have served us much better. It's too bad he'd rather rant.

To my opinion, the development of modern science in the west was ironically due to the result of religious extremism - going against it. Perhaps science should be restrained somehow so that technology will not charge ahead of our soul too much, using up all the natural resources before figuring out or proving that there is or is not God. Confucius pointed out 2500 years ago already that something is not meant to be questioned because the answer is extremely disappointing. Sorta like the TV show that exposes all the magic tricks - what is the point? Take a step back on belief in science and technology and conserve resources so that the mankind can have more time to do 'scientific thinking' before extinction.

Generally, I can plow through a good book in a matter of days. It took me a week and a half to finish Robert Park's Superstition, not because it was overly difficult or challenging. Despite being highly interested in the subject matter of science and superstition, I frequently lost a bit of interest in the book and would have to take frequent breaks to read something else.

Park's book covers the standard ground of books on science and superstition. Park takes quite a few cracks at religious superstition (especially the absurd belief that bad things like Tsunami's and World Trade Center attacks happen because of failure to worship and follow a jealous God). He sinks his teeth into homeopathy and bungling attempts to associate quantum physics with new age religion ("But I saw it on Oprah...) and explains the basic neuroscience behind why we believe things with and without adequate evidence.

But, to tell the truth, I didn't really get anything from Park's book that I didn't get from reading Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World," Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" and the several skeptical books by Shermer. All of these cover the ground of Park and, I might add, cover the ground better. Oftentimes, Park comes off as very emotionally vested and ranting rather than, as a skeptic should be, cool-headed and well-reasoned.

Of course, there are several high-points of the book, like where Park explains why natural disasters occur, lamenting the fact that, despite this explanation, the most recent Tsunamis were as often as not blamed on God's wrath. Park also picks apart why claims why "studies" showing the efficacy of "remote viewing" generally cannot be trusted.

But often, Park's argument (for instance, against the new-age-infused best-seller "The Secret") are more rhetorical than reasoned. As much as I agree with Park's stance against new-age hooey, I couldn't help but be a bit irked by Park's pleading skepticism on the one hand and, on the other, often telling us that x should be believed becaus the majority of scientists believe it. On the one hand, these so-called experts are not to be trusted, but on the other, these ones (who happen to reach the desired conclusions) need no scrutiny. Again, I am not saying that I disagree with Park's conclusions (every superstition he rails against is, in my opinion, justified). I am simply saying that I dislike some of the inconsistent ways Park argues. Like many skeptics, his good points are peppered with very unskeptical arguments from authority and incredulity (x is hooey because science has no idea how it could happen," an argument that skeptics find intolerable when leveled by anti-evolutionists, but we often use against various science-defying superstitions).

If I were new to skepticism, I would reccomend Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World," Dawkins' "Unweaving the Rainbow" and Shermer's "Why People Believe Wierd Things," before Park's "Superstition." This book is halfway decent, but experienced skeptics have heard these points before.