Talk:Voodoo Science

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Warning Signs 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Park's book, his views, and how people view him

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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   but as expected this is not a reliable source. Goblin Face (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reviews

message: 71.80.203.159 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Box needed