Superstition
Price: $ 0.99
Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science
- ISBN13: 9780691133553
- Condition: NEW
- Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
From uttering a prayer before boarding a plane, to exploring past lives through hypnosis, has superstition become pervasive in contemporary culture? Robert Park, the best-selling author of Voodoo Science, argues that it has. In Superstition, Park asks why people persist in superstitious convictions long after science has shown them to be ill-founded. He takes on supernatural beliefs from religion and the afterlife to New Age spiritualism and faith-based medical claims. He examines recent controv
Rating: 
(out of 15 reviews)
List Price: $ 24.95
Price: $ 15.23
Review by Roy E. Perry for Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science
Rating:
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.
Review by David Brockert for Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science
Rating:
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.
Review by Robert J. Cullen for Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science
Rating:
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.
Review by Luigi Novi for Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science
Rating:
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.
Review by G. Charles Steiner for Superstition: Belief in the Age of Science
Rating:
Hey, I’m pro science myself, but I think the four prior reviewers of this book are glib about the contents of this book and/or are ideologic in their indiscriminate positive appraisals. I want to correct the wholly positive and glib prior impressions made of the book as they overlook the serious flaw at the heart of this otherwise interesting and informative book.
In concluding Chapter 8, “Schrodinger’s Grave,” Maryland professor of physics, Robert L. Park, writes “It’s a sobering reminder that science has its own superstitions.” He is discussing the collapse of a wave fuction and how it’s “as if” a human observer must be the one to collapse it.
Out of the twelve chapters that comprise this book, Chapter 8, is the most dense in regard to scientific terms and awareness of mathematical complexities.
In Chapter 8, the real middle and meat of the book, Mr. Park is attempting to logically and scientifically expose how ridiculous it is that some people, including some physicists, “believe” that the laws of quantum physics do not correspond well to or are not continuous with the “familiar laws of classical physics.” In attempting to make his point uncontroversial, he focuses on a suspect case of psychokinesis. While he shows and proves the case study is and was unscientific from first to last, he does not at all show or prove the smooth transition from the laws of quantum physics to the laws of classical physics. He merely makes fun of these pseudo-scientists or mystics as well as the New Age consumers of the “What the Bleep Do We Know?” movie and merely asserts that, in fact, there is a smooth transition between quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics — without providing the evidence, except to say that the “as if” of human observance in relation to the collapse of a wave function is a metaphor only (dummy!).
Thus, what would have made this book truly an over-the-top tribute to science and a spectacular defense for the laymen in the scientific community was for Mr. Park to have imparted the above-referenced explanation and evidence. That failure, along with his stunning statement that “science has its own superstitions” disappointed this reader to the core. (Thus the four-star rating.) The reader had to rely upon the authority of the writer for the facts, not the proof. It seems the scientist/writer here sadly failed to act and think as a scientist and educator.
The first two-thirds and the last third of the book are written in generally but unevenly clear, easily-graspable, journalistic prose (when scientific terms are not tossed in without definitions), and the focus on superstition is largely from the first two-thirds. In these pages he discusses well and decisively the Scopes Trial, evolution, intelligent design, the deceitfulness of the Christian Agenda, the suspect value of prayer in physical healing, topics that have been discussed just as well by other scientists in other books, but Mr. Park presents his ideas plainly and with a brisk and friendly economy of words and only the necessary minimum of political blather. Throughout these chapters, the moral and scientific theme is renewed again and again: there’s a physical cause behind every event; science can prove this, and there is no other knowledge.
The last third of the book loses its tight focus a bit. More (boring) politics is involved in the topic of alternative medicines, most of which, however, Mr. Parks is very apt and accurate in invaliding (that is, the alternative medicine under review). Although the discussion about acupuncture is explored scientifically and unfolds as just another superstition, the topics of overpopulation, the unscientific fantasies of traveling to a star or of colonizing other planets are not really about superstition per se, but just misconceptions or wrong-headed notions with a scientific patina.
If there is a non-metaphoric cash value in reading the book it lies in the fact that Robert Park warns the reader that the homeopathic medicine known as oscillococcinum is totally worthless (Chapter 9) as a flu remedy and you can save yourself $18 by not buying a single dose.
This was a good, solid, positive reading experience, but I wanted better from the scientist-educator. Could Robert L. Park have been expecting even the layman to know the Copenhagen interpretation as the foundation for the smooth or continuous transition of quantum mechanics from classcial physics? If so, why? (The typical layperson doesn’t even know the difference between a haploid and a diploid, terms mentioned but undefined in Park’s book. How should he be expected to grasp even, say, Planck’s constant without some help from the scientific journalist?) That gap disappointed this reader. Argument from authority is no argument at all. Science is designed to act better than a religion. (Postcript: I caught three (3) really glaring typographical errors in the text, nasty surprises for a Princeton University Press text.)