Customer Reviews

Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

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 it (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 believe 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 without informing the reader that it is based entirely on the contents of the film's preview 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, and it's difficult to understand why they did this, if they actually read the chapter in question. I am forced to wonder if PW did this so that prospective buyers who are on the fence, or perhaps already biased against its naturalism-driven thesis, would conclude in knee-jerk fashion that the book's exploration of these ideas is as incoherent as PW implies, and be satisfied that it's not worth the read. 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.

With acerbic wit and humorous repartee, Robert L. Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland, asks why we believe weird things even when no evidence supports our claims.

"Science," he writes, "is the only way of knowing--everything else is superstition. Everything in the universe is governed by the same natural laws; there is a physical cause behind every event."

A humanist and naturalist, Park asserts that science rejects appeal to authority in favor of empirical evidence. He attacks pseudoscience--from so-called "intelligent design" and young-Earth fundamentalism to New Age mysticism, homeopathic "remedies," and snake-oil "cures."

"Science," he says, "is the only way humankind has found of separating truth from fraud or mere foolishness; it's what we've learned about how not to fool ourselves."

If you like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens, you'll love Robert L. Park.

This is a very interesting book. It is kind a diatribe against religion, and yet he very open to conversations with believers. I liked the way he bought out the oddities and inconsistencies that some people believe because it is part of their religion. He is an avowed atheist, but his friends throughout this book are a couple of Roman Catholic Brothers. They are all inquisitive people, but none of them are willing to change their religion.
After a lot of reflection, I have come to understand that Christianity is based on mythology (if you need faith, you are believing in mythology, or else it is fact and faith is unreasonable), and this book speaks of Christianity as mythology, the first time I have seen it in print as such.
He goes through a lot of interesting science and religion and health claims and puts them into a form where you can see the impossibility of them being true. Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research studying parapsychology does a lot of extensive studies to prove the existence of ESP, but Mr. Park suggests they could just have the participants move a scale with little or no weight on it. If it works, consistently, there is the proof, if not, there is no proof and no need to spend more on proving nothing happens.
There was some talk of habitats built in orbit to relieve population growth in the Seventies. He explains how he gives this as a problem for his students to see if they can prove or disprove its practicality. It is not possible, too much money and energy and too many people to be accommodated.
This was one exceptional book. Easy to read and understand and interesting.

Bob Park has done a great service in this book about current superstitions in mentioning the "superstitious nonsense" known as vitalism, the foundation of many 'alternative medicines,' including naturopathy [which ludicrously claims such survives scientific scrutiny!]. Here's a sample, and I quote:

"at the beginning of the twentieth century, the existence of a 'vital life force' or 'divine spark' still seemed necessary to some scientists [...] this is the ancient concept of vitalism, which long ago lost any meaning in science. The chemistry and physics that animates matter has ceased to be a mystery. Certainly since Watson and Crick resolved the mystery of DNA, there is no longer a need for a 'divine spark' [p.081...and] Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection in particular gave rise to naturalism [...which] left no room for vitalism or other spiritual explanations. The germ theory of disease, emerging from the work of Pasteur and Koch after the death of Darwin, would prove to be the death of such superstitious nonsense as vitalism [p.151]."

I recommend all of Dr. Park's books -- including this excellent one -- and his "What's New" weekly online UM column.

-r.c.

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.

What makes The books of Robert Park such a treat to read is the clarity with which he presents his arguments. "Superstition" was written for laypersons who are fed up with the facile explanations offered by non-scientests concerning the truth of what nature is and how it works. When I finished reading "Superstition" I thought of a statement John F Kennedy once made: "The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but MYTH, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Belief in myth allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought". The plain fact of the matter is that science is true whether one believes in it or not. The spirit of Socrates is alive and well in Dr. Park. With his clever insights and devastating wit, he disrupts those who are comfortable in their mythologies. I am going to recommend "Superstition" to everyone I know. [As an aside, whoever wrote that review for "Publisher's Weekly" must have had a bad day when they typed their piece - I couldn't disagree more with it's arguments. Yet I will bet that Dr. Park, true scientist that he is, will not be bothered by it in the least].

I read this book twice in two weeks. I learned a lot not only about modern physics but also about religious groups; spirituality groups and so-called new age gurus; government agencies; top-notch scientists and a variety of subjects ranging from how the Hypothalamus control our emotions to why high voltage is preferred to conduct electricity to save costs. The depth and breadth of knowledge of Robert Park is simply amazing.JC

Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science by Robert L. Park

Mr. Park uses sound scientific principles to debunk popular superstitions many of which are wrapped in pseudo science. With sound logic and acerbic wit, the author makes this book a fun informative read.

Positives:

1. Well written, with supporting scientific data to debunk the popular superstitions.
2. 12 chapters of popular superstitions and or pseudo sciences, among them: prayer, creationism, intelligent design, souls, ghosts, out-of-body experiences (OBEs), afterlife, New-Age beliefs, homeopathy, and acupuncture to name the main ones.
3. Interesting throughout and accessible made for a quick fun read. Good bit of storytelling.
4. Good use of the theory of evolution. A lot of great examples of the power of evolution. I loved the story of the molecular anthropologist Sarah Tishkoff.
5. Plenty of interesting tidbits throughout.
6. Nothing like exposing charlatans who take advantage of the gullible. There are a plenty of charlatans exposed in this book.
7. Packs a good punch in under 250 pages.


Negatives:
1. The book has some misprints better editing required but it didn't distract too much.
2. I was expecting more details. Some of the superstitions were glanced over.
3. Some parts of the book, has more "rant" than substance.
4. Not as thorough as other books covering the same topics.

In summary, an interesting topic covered well lead to a quick read. An overall, good sound book

The truth is that I finished this book a few weeks ago but failed to write a review in any kind of timely manner. Let me assure you this is not because I didn't enjoy it, quite the opposite in fact. The incredible complications of real life, two separate jobs and simple mind numbing apathy combined to thwart my lazy ass's best intentions. That and I felt I should read parts of it again, not that it wasn't clear. Rather, it holds so much excellent information that my feeble wit is unable to contain. Damn my evolutionary brain!

I picked this book somewhat at random and am mildly surprised at my luck, for this has proved to be an excellent choice for both the solid and aspiring atheist or skeptic. It is not only a point by point refutation of the wide varieties of superstition present today, but it's also a general overview of how and why people insist on living in a fantasy world rather that the scientific one. It is a strong discussion on the evidence for a "naturalist" world view as opposed to the superstitious. Quite honestly, it is one of the better refutations I have come across of not only Young Earth Creationism and the more malignant forms of fundamentalism, but theism in general.

Park is matter of fact and plain-spoken retaining a good storytelling style, and storytelling it is from personal and touching anecdotes (the tree falling on and nearly killing him is my favorite) to the creation of the Templeton foundation and the struggle of the Christian right to teach creationism in schools to the philosophical conundrum where innocents suffer. Through everything Parks weaves both the personal tales of the main people involved and the consequences of the struggles contained within. And in doing so he is never mean or petty concerning those with whom he disagrees. The tales he tells really are personal and you end up liking most of the people he discusses, even those on the other sides of the issue. Parks refuses to demonize people; he just proves that they are wrong. And he does this really well.

You could say that overall Superstition is a summary of the skeptical versus supernatural arguments of last century up until today. To give an example, the battleground involving evolution is well documented. The chapter opens with the story of Sarah Tishkoff the molecular anthropologist who tracked the evolution of lactose tolerance in adults furthering yet another branch of evolution and continues through to the evolution (pardon the funny) of the idea of Intelligent Design as a strategy to get religion back in the classroom. Through the chapter, Parks dips into the evolution of the human brain, pattern recognition being the root of superstition, the Scopes Monkey trial, the god of the gaps argument, the modern synthesis, and the discovery of DNA. And these are only the highlights of a single chapter.

This is an in-depth discussion of the issues. It is not light reading in any way yet it's easy to read. In fact, the damned thing almost reads itself. I found myself enthralled time and time again, often late at night or pushing the limits of lunch break.

But I must tell you that my favorite chapter is the end, for I am a sucker for a good ending, and Mr. parks delivers a powerhouse blow here. I don't agree with all his assumptions, his firm belief that humanity will never leave earth for instance. But I agree with the basic premise. Even the most optimistic calculations means that the vast majority of humans born on earth will never leave. We need to be more rational now that ever. With over population and Global warming the world is becoming more dangerous by the year, religion and other superstitions are hampering us from saving ourselves. Irrationality may doom us. The entire book culminates with an eloquent plea for science, the only tool that can save us.

If I have a complaint about Superstition, it would be this. That after I finished I could feel the solid and concise arguments for rational thought muddle themselves or slip from my mind like a wonderful dream in the morning light. I'm left with only slightly more than a great feeling and a few random mental images to go forth into battle. I cannot, in truth, blame Mr. Parks. The neuronic sieve of my mind seems reluctant to hold onto all of his points. My mind is a great pattern recognizer, just not a great pattern storer. Much to my regret, I am a sorter not a warehouse.

That's why I'm reading it again. It's worth it. In fact, I am now reading it to my twelve-year-old son.

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.