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 can not be used for the opinions of multiple scientists but it is a notable general and recent criticism