I think some of NealParr's comments above are extremely misleading about this source. The age of the Langmuir reference is irrelevant, because Park only uses the Langmuir reference to define pathological science. Then Park, writing in 2000, after "all the research from the 1970s, all the criticism to come after, and all the changes made by parapsychologists in response to criticism" argues that the term still applies to parapsychology at the time he is writing. NealParr's comment that Park is being "unfair" is just NealParr's opinion. Shoemaker's Holiday is correct (as usual) that the source cannot be used for the opinions of multiple scientists, but it is a notable, general and recent criticism.