Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Technology Books Media Book Reviews

Book Review: Voodoo Science 505

Posted by chrisd
from the voodoo-that-you-do-so-well dept.
During the cavalcade of April Fool's spoofs here on /., one submission stuck in my mind as fascinating and enjoyable -- and a complete scam. It was about an alleged anti-gravity disc, made from a 12" superconducting ring that looked not unlike a brake pad. As luck would have it, I was reading the book Voodoo Science at the time and thought once the April Fools hoopla had died down that I'd do a review of it for Slashdot, so read on if you care to.
Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud
author Robert Park
pages 230
publisher Oxford University Press
rating 4/5
reviewer chrisd
ISBN 0195147103
summary Robert Park exposes how bad science propogates.
Perhaps I should have posted the story, but in the end that sort of pseudo-scientific chicanery doesn't even deserve the attention that /. would bring it on April Fool's day.

The short review of Voodoo Science is that this is not a book that would make a good birthday gift for Alex Chiu or for that matter Deepak Chopra.

Voodoo Science is a happy little bon-bon of a book for the scientifically inclined. Robert Park is the head of the Washington office of the American Physical Society, and has worked inside the beltway helping the U.S. government and others understand the basics of science so they can make appropriate policy decisions. It is depressingly clear how badly they need it.

While there is a certain level of joy to be found in reading about Mr. Park's exploits debunking cranks and frauds, there is a sad realization that prominent legislators have no clue as to the physical laws that are the underpinnings of science. No, I wasn't surprised, but it was depressing nonetheless to see Trent Lott's name on a resolution designed to push through a patent on a "free energy" device, or Tom Harkin using his power to force the NIH to embrace alternative medicine as anything other than a placebo.

While fun, this isn't a perfect book. It is organized a little strangely, with subheadings throwing off the flow of reading, and at a little over 200 pages it seems too short.Park's mission with this book was not to dissect the great scientific frauds of all time, but I thought he could have spent more time on the issues he did bring up and less on trying to understand the Alex Chius of the world. Mr. Park is probably just trying to be polite, but in my reading of Voodoo Science he comes off as being too soft on the very targets of the book.

The case of cold fusion is a perfect example. His recounting of the famous events was right on, but it just fell flat when it came to to point the finger at Pons, Fleischman and the University of Utah for their complicity in fraud before the Utah state legislature. It is akin to writing a book about Enron and saying about Ken Lay: "It is likely he knew what he was doing was possibly improper."

I'd recommend Voodoo Science as a good gift to a younger reader, as it describes foundations of science in an accessible way. As you've probably gathered, an appropriate name for this book might be "The Laws of Thermodynamics and those that thought it didn't apply to them." As such, the book serves as a decent introduction to critical thinking about the physical world around us.


You can purchase Voodoo Science from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Book Review: Voodoo Science

Comments Filter:
  • Oh shit (Score:2, Funny)

    by Graymalkin (13732)
    You mean those were spoofs? Holy baby Jesus!
  • by Marx_Mrvelous (532372) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:49AM (#3365146) Homepage
    That he wasn't smart enough to discover the amazing Immortality ring! I didn't want to pay for one, but I was lucky enough to find one while graverobbing.
    • I saw a guy who had an amulet which would prevent any sort of theft. It seemed like a useful thing to have, so I grabbed it while he wasn't looking.

      -c.
  • Thats a review??? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:51AM (#3365153) Homepage Journal
    Holy moley. I've had more gained more in depth knowledge about their books from 2 minute conversations with strangers on the bus.
  • Alex Chiu (Score:4, Funny)

    by toupsie (88295) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:52AM (#3365160) Homepage
    For your information, Alex Chiu's Immortality Device works. He hasn't died. According to his web site, if you think he is crazy, you are the same kind of person that would have thought that Edison, Einstein and Tesla were kooks. So there, science boy!

    Now if only Alex Chiu could design a contraption that prevent ocular damage from looking at his web site.

    • by return 42 (459012)
      Now if only Alex Chiu could design a contraption that prevent ocular damage from looking at his web site.

      U.S. Patent No. 4587349578

      A method of preventing ocular damage resulting from viewing a website is described.

      Step 1: Submit a story to Slashdot that includes the URL of the website in question.
      Step 2: Wait until the story is published, plus ten minutes.
      Step 3: Attempt to view the website. No ocular damage will result.

    • According to his web site, if you think he is crazy, you are the same kind of person that would have thought that Edison, Einstein and Tesla were kooks.

      YOU are educated stupid. YOU worship cubeless word. YOU are your own poison. YOU create your own hell. YOU must seek Time Cube.

  • Placebo? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kubrick (27291) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:53AM (#3365169)
    Tom Harkin using his power to force the NIH to embrace alternative medicine as anything other than a placebo.

    What's wrong with the placebo effect? It's probably responsible for a good chunk of conventional medicine's positive results as well :)

    • What's wrong with the placebo effect?

      Exactly, the placebo effect is the perfect treatment for a hypochondriac like me.
    • Re:Placebo? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Frater 219 (1455) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @11:50AM (#3365577) Journal
      What's wrong with the placebo effect? It's probably responsible for a good chunk of conventional medicine's positive results as well :)

      Actually, when a drug or treatment is tested, its effectiveness is generally compared with that of a placebo. Unless the drug is significantly more effective than a placebo, it isn't considered a good treatment.

      (Warning: IANAMR (medical researcher).)

      So, for instance, let's say you invent a new vitamin treatment which you claim can prevent people from getting colds. In order to test it, you'd get a large number of people willing to try it out. Half of them you'd have take the new drug and half the placebo -- without, of course, telling them which is which. (In fact, in a double blind experiment, even the nurse handing out the pills doesn't know, so that s/he can't accidentally let on to the patients.)

      After some period of time, you see how many of the treated patients have had colds, and how many of the placebo patients have -- and compare both numbers with the average for the population, or a control group. Now it may very well be that the placebo patients have fewer colds than the control (that's the placebo effect) -- but if your treatment is effective, the treated patients will have even fewer, because both the placebo effect and the treatment's actual effectiveness are in their favor.

      (Incidentally, the last I read of the matter, placebo effects work a lot better on colds and other stress-related ailments than they do on cancer or AIDS.)

      • AIDS is a bad example, considering how screwed up the drug trials were [duesberg.com], and as a result of these screwed drug trials, AZT is now considered the "ethically minimal care" and all drug trials are made versus it, not a placebo.

        There are other problems with the way the FDA is handling their trials. There is an anti-viral procedure that infuses ozone into a patient blood that has been effective and reducing the HIV, HSV, and other viral counts (because of oxygen's ability to kill virii), but the FDA refuses to allow it to be tested in America because they don't believe Ozone is an effective treatement. Topical creams for HSV have drug trials while peroxide, and effective treatment for the oxygen reasons given above, doesn't, simply because you can't patent peroxide.

        When you look into the FDA's actual practices, there is a lot of shady stuff going on, unfortunately.
  • by tsornin (248038) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:53AM (#3365170)

    Robert Park exposes how bad science propogates (sic).


    So says the summary, but the review is mostly about the fact that so many people who make decisions about science are utterly uninformed. Does the book actually tell us how the system got to be this way, though? Like, how so many people get through our educational system with so little knowledge of science, and how such people are permitted to have control over scientific organizations? I wanna learn more.

  • See also... (Score:4, Informative)

    by kzinti (9651) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:55AM (#3365177) Homepage Journal
    In a similar vein are Martin Gardner's classics Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science and Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus. Great books, good reading.

    --Jim
  • by Joao (155665) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:57AM (#3365183) Homepage
    A good article about this book, its author, and the pseudo-science phenomena can be found here - http://www.salon.com/books/it/2000/03/15/voodoo/pr int.html [salon.com]
  • Scientific Literacy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crumbz (41803)
    My personal experience in the IT world for the past eight years is that general scientific literacy among Americans is on the decline. Ignorance of basic scientific principles, methods and tools from co-workers and customers amazes me on a daily basis. Ex. The metric system. The ability to perform simple conversions such as inches to cm and pounds to kg. Ex. The ability to perform math operations more complex than arithmetic. Ex. The ability to interpret statistical data in a meaningful manner.

    Given the sorry state of affairs, it is not surprising that people beleive in perpetual motion machines and other devices that violate the laws of thermodynamics.
    • People don't even understand percentages, let alone higher math concepts.

      When asked why they now tip wait staff 25%, a friend of a friend replied "inflation". Just think about that for a second.

      Unfortunately, it's the same people that think cutting taxes only benefits "the rich". You cut taxes across the board by 2%, and they all cry foul, like the rich are "getting more". Well hello, they pay more! Don't you understand what a percentage means??!?

      Sickening.
      • Yikes. Your example of the 25% tip sent a shiver up my spine. Inflation???

        And you are correct. If you have a hard time with percentages, you are seriously screwed.

        Not to pick on Americans, but what has happened to the support for science in this country? Science and engineering degrees as a percentage of total degrees have been on the downward slope since the 1970s, especially for domestic students.

        I like the quote from William Gibson, "The Japanese have forgotten more about nerve splicing than the Chinese have ever learned." Might as well apply to Americans. Course, I am being a little hard on us....

        • nobody wants to pay for it, every year its cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes..
          Where do you think the cuts are going to happes some pork barrek project that keeps a senator in office, or public services?

          I could never be elected for anything because would want to make sure no tax cut happened with out what is being cut in the measure, and I think there should be a 25 cents a gallon gas tax that goes into the local schools maintainance and supply budget, and another 10 cent a gallon that goes towards new teacher and better pay.

          Let bring languages, science and art back into the schools and teach people how to think.
      • about 20 years ago, there was some sort of stink over how much waitpersons where making.
        The orginized body that was 'running things' wanted people to tip more because of 'inflation'.
        They where being backed by, you guessed, the resturants.
        The same resturants that raised there prices but never raised there employees salary.
        So there I am, 17 years old, arguing with some woman trying to tell here, 15% of 10 dollars was more then 15% of 5 dollars.
        she says, and I quote "15% is still 15%, so its not more money" I'll never forget that.
  • Weekly 'What's New' (Score:4, Informative)

    by gorilla (36491) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:58AM (#3365192)
    Park has a weekly 'What's new' email, where he briefly describes the weeks events, you can read it on the web [aps.org], or subscribe for the email list.
  • My own review is here [theassayer.org]. To me, the most interesting thing about the book was the way it documented how pseudoscience has invaded otherwise respectable organizations like NASA.
  • Good book (Score:5, Informative)

    by Eloquence (144160) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @10:59AM (#3365199) Homepage
    I read Voodo Science. It's a good book and gives a nice summary of subjects like homeopathy and manned space exploration. What it lacks the most are sources. The author states that he didn't want his book to be riddled with footnotes so as not to confuse the reader, but that is obviously a stupid attitude for a book that is written to encourage people to embrace science. Author Robert Park also writes a newsletter called What's New [aps.org] about developments in Voodo Science.

    Park's book should be read together with another one: Trust Us, We're Experts! (Amazon [amazon.com]) by John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton. While there is a lot of "junk science" out there, there is at least as much corporate sponsorship behind efforts to discredit real scientific work as such. See also this story [earthisland.org] about PR efforts to discredit global warming, and my related K5 comment [kuro5hin.org].

    • Re:Good book (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Reality Master 101 (179095) <RealityMaster101.gmail@com> on Thursday April 18, 2002 @11:47AM (#3365535) Homepage Journal

      The author states that he didn't want his book to be riddled with footnotes so as not to confuse the reader, but that is obviously a stupid attitude for a book that is written to encourage people to embrace science.

      Oh, well, "obviously". On the other hand, is it possible to just present science in an entertaining way that encourages people to do more research on their own without weighing it down to the point that it's unapproachable? Or to put it another way, should a book about dinosaurs for five year olds be fully annotated with long treatises on alternative dinosaur theories?

      See also this story [earthisland.org] about PR efforts to discredit global warming,

      The question about global warming is not weather the globe is, in fact, warming, but whether 1) mankind is the cause, 2) how much warming really matters, and 3) whether the earth has self-equilibrium processes that we don't understand.

      By far, most of the "junk science" is on the global warming side. Only the most arrogant idiots or the biggest fools think we have even a remote understanding of climates. The biggest junk science factory today are computer climate models. They are worse than useless, because they mislead people into thinking that the models are "statements of fact" when they are just incredibly crude tools that may or may not help us find the truth.

      Never has a title been more apropos as Trust Us, We're Experts! as it does with Global Warming.

  • After buying a couple of John Gray's books, I was scratching my head on some of his theories. While some seemed like common sense, others smelled strongly of stereotypes and assumptions the quality of which one can find in any sit-com.

    A while back I did a litter searching to find out a little more about the authors of the Mars and Venus books. Here's [compuserve.com] a grain of salt to take with them.

  • If you really understand gravity, then you're probably the first (yeah, I'm sure some first year physics students can expound about gravity, incorrectly believing that they understand what gravity is and how it works, but the reality is that gravity is mostly an unknown with some guesstimates and postulations [what is the "Speed of Gravity"?] : An invisible, almost magical attraction between objects). As such, the idea that gravity is a wave or a force and therefore can be blocked, or shielded, isn't that absurd. I'm not a physics buff by any measure of the imagination, but it is one of those fascinating fields that can make one curious. IEEE's Spectrum magazine had a fascinating story about how little has actually been proven in the field of quantum mechanics, and it really is stunning.
  • Carl Sagan's _The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_. Here's links to two different [2think.org] reviews [epinions.com].

    Stephen Jay Gould, almost everything he's ever written but particularly The Mismeasure of Man [wwnorton.com].

    Then there's the classic, much older but still frequently cited Charles Mackay's _Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_ online.
    (entire text available courtesy of Gutenberg)
    part 1 [upenn.edu]
    part 2 [upenn.edu]
    part 3 [upenn.edu]

  • Not so fast.... (Score:2, Informative)

    by JohnPM (163131)
    ...and a complete scam. It was about an alleged anti-gravity disc, made from a 12" superconducting ring that looked not unlike a brake pad.

    This is far from being consigned to the scam basket (although it may end up there). The easiest way to demonstrate this is to note that NASA has invested in research [space.com] to try to replicate Podkletnov's [amasci.com] results.

    The interesting thing about gravity is that it isn't well understood by modern physics. We know how it behaves (we think) but we don't know what causes it really. This makes it equally ripe for psuedo-science as for breakthrough science. In any case, an April Fool's day scam it isn't.

    There are a bunch of other links here [amasci.com] and a good overview here [rognerud.com].
  • by vinsci (537958) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @11:18AM (#3365308) Journal
    Slashdot already covered [slashdot.org] Robert Park's book.

    See what Nobel Laureate and professor of Physics Brian D. Josephson has to say [cam.ac.uk] of Robert Park.

    In Washinton Post, Charles Platt comments like so [washingtonpost.com].

    For a good commentary on Park vs Cold Fusion, go to the source [mv.com].

    "When I began my physical studies [in Munich in 1874] and sought advice from my venerable teacher Philipp von Jolly... he portrayed to me physics as a highly developed, almost fully matured science... Possibly in one or another nook there would perhaps be a dust particle or a small bubble to be examined and classified, but the system as a whole stood there fairly secured, and theoretical physics approached visibly that degree of perfection which, for example, geometry has had already for centuries."

    • -- from a 1924 lecture by Max Planck (Sci. Am, Feb 1996 p.10)
    • So the head of the "Mind-Matter Unification Project", a senior writer for "Wired", and an article from "Infinite Energy" magazine panned the book?

      You don't say....
      • If you actually read Mallove's review of Park's Voodoo Science, you'll find that the party guilty of poor science is Robert Park himself. I'd say it's even rather embarassing for Park.

        And how come Robert Park doesn't mention the tokamak hot fusion fiasco? Could it be it's too close to home? Could it be it's competing for research funding?

        Making fun of scientists on the cutting edge is nothing new, let's take just one example:

        "A Severe Strain on the Credulity

        As a method of sending a missile to the higher, and even to the highest parts of the earth's atmospheric envelope, Professor Goddard's rocket is a practicable and therefore promising device. It is when one considers the multiple-charge rocket as a traveler to the moon that one begins to doubt ... for after the rocket quits our air and really starts on its journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left.

        Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react ... Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools."

        • -- New York Times Editorial, 1920

        There are of course countless more examples. Go read some history of science.

  • by gdyas (240438) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @11:41AM (#3365474) Homepage

    I absolutely cannot believe the level of level 2+ comments from supposedly intelligent people here who think there's something to homeopathic and alternative therapies. Most of them obviously haven't read Park's book, nor would they probably care to.

    As for homeopathy, this is a practice that relies on diluting chemicals or extracts in water until there's no possibility of that chemical being in the liquid administered, relying on the "water memory" of the chemical for efficacy. Despite never having been shown to be efficacious in double-blinded clinical trials, it's ridiculous from the view of chemistry, physics, and what we know of the universe, due to a little problem called Avogadro's number (about 6.3x10^23, the number of molecules in one mole of a substance). Each of these serial dilutions of extracts causes the concentration to descend so far below avogadro's number that there is no chemical in what is administered. Park demonstrates in the book, using simple high school chemistry (which obviously many here are having difficulty remembering) that homeopathy, as practiced by the homeopathic industry, is simply the drinking of water.

    It all has to do with a little something known as proof of efficacy, the most important part of any clinical trial. As one doctor said regarding the recent governmental report on "alternative" medicines (to paraphrase), "There are only two kinds of medicine -- that which works and that which doesn't. If something that's considered to be alternative is shown to work then it's adopted. If not, it is not."

    People, there is medicine and there is quackery. The double-blind clinical trial is the only way of distinguishing between the two, and even then conditions have to be constructed carefully to insure accurate results. Thank God the FDA doesn't rely on the anecdotal evidence of family members, the testimonials of paid spokespeople, or the promises of the herbal supplement industry.

    The FDA was created to help people see through all this snake oil & empty promises, but now, through exemptions for "herbal supplements" pushed through congress, led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, we have a renaissance of this sort of lies and deception of the populace. Unlike homeopathic remedies, herbal supplements many times do have powerful agents in them. Only because of their designation as a food and not a drug, they get around FDA requirements for purity, consistency, and efficacy. Because of widely varying concentrations of agents including ephedrine and hormones, and a level of quality that runs the gamut due to a complete lack of quality control, we have a multibillion-dollar industry whose products have been reported to cause strokes, heart disease and liver damage. In one report in the LA Times last month it was reported that the makers of an herbal supplement in Utah were adding crystal meth to their weight loss product, causing a spate of strokes & heart conditions in middle-aged people before being caught & shut down.

    It's a tragedy, and it's a needless danger created because the average person has little more than an elementary school level of understanding of science. And I can't believe that so many of you are gullible enough to be taken in by these hucksters. Please, read and study before putting drugs in your body that aren't approved by the FDA.

    • Please, read and study before putting drugs in your body that aren't approved by the FDA.

      Then what would I do with my weekends? I suppose I will have to resort to alcomohol.


    • double blind trials (Score:3, Informative)

      by streetlawyer (169828)
      Your statement is a lie. The September 1997 issue of the Lancet published a metastudy which summarised 89 double-blind trials of homeopathic medicine and concluded that it was not possible to dismiss the results as chance. Here [webmd.com] are a few such references.

      Furthermore, your reference to Avogadro's number is ignorant. We actually don't understand dilution very well, but we do know that the simplistic model you assume (one in which you simply divide the moles of active agent by moles of water) does not describe the results of multiple dilutions very well at all. In actual fact, molecules often "clump" together, with more or less unknown effects on their agency inside human beings.

      The tragedy, and needless danger, is created by know-it-all types who dismiss anything they don't understand rather than acting like grown-up scientists and doing research.

      Oh yeh, and

      As one doctor said regarding the recent governmental report on "alternative" medicines (to paraphrase), "There are only two kinds of medicine -- that which works and that which doesn't. If something that's considered to be alternative is shown to work then it's adopted. If not, it is not."

      If you believe this, why all that piss, wind and vinegar about homeopathy? In the treatment of allergies and osteoarthritis, homeopathic remedies have been widely adopted. Around 32% of French and 42% of English general practitioners regularly refer patients to homeopaths. Because, presumably, they care more about making people better than about looking good in front of the Science Police.

      • by at_18 (224304)
        Your statement is a lie. The September 1997 issue of the Lancet published a metastudy which summarised 89 double-blind trials of homeopathic medicine and concluded that it was not possible to dismiss the results as chance.

        If you reference an article, you should read it. Some quotes from that 1997 study:

        "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo. However, we found insufficient evidence from these studies that homeopathy is clearly efficacious for any single clinical condition."

        "Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach on any single clinical condition."

        Not exactly the homeopathic confirm that you make it appear.
        • bullshit (Score:3, Informative)

          by streetlawyer (169828)
          How does: "The results of our meta-analysis are not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homeopathy are completely due to placebo" differ materially from "it was not possible to dismiss the results as chance"? I very carefully did not present the study as a "homepathic confirm", simply as evidence that the original poster's statement that there had been no double blind trials which provided any evidence for it.

          And your selective quoting of "Our study has no major implications for clinical practice because we found little evidence of effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach on any single clinical condition." is positively Orwellian. This was a meta-study of 89 separate studies, most of which analysed the effects of homeopathy in different conditions. Given that, it is quite obvious that it would never find effectiveness of any single homeopathic approach, because that wasn't what it was looking for. You wouldn't find evidence of this kind for penicillin if you took a metastudy of its use in 89 different conditions.

      • Good luck with those homeopathic remedies.

        Homeopathy and alternative medicine are just two of the ways that Darwin is working to keep our gene pool clean.

  • Hermits and Cranks (Score:4, Interesting)

    by DaoudaW (533025) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @11:45AM (#3365513)
    The Skeptic column in the March, 2002 issue of Scientific American had a good summary of pseudoscience titled Hermits and Cranks [sciam.com]. They quote Martin Gardner's characterization of the pseudoscientist. Written in 1952, they are amazingly relevant 50 years later:

    (1) He considers himself a genius.

    (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads....

    (3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work....

    (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein....

    (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.

    • "Home. I have no home. Hunted, despised, living like an animal. The jungle is my home. For 20 years I have lived in this jungle hell. I was classed as a madman, a charlatan. Outlawed in the world of science, which had previously hailed me as a genius. Now here in this jungle hell, I have proved that I was right. Here, I will create a race of atomic supermen who will conquer the world!
      Pull the string! Pull the string!"
      Dr. Eric Vornoff, Bride of the Monster (one of Ed Wood's classics).

      Just seemed, I don't know, relevant :)
  • My favorite reference for "Cold Fusion" in particular and bad science in general is

    Gary Taubes

    Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion
    Random House 1993
    ISBN 0-394-58456-2
    It certainly has all the detail one could ever want on the topic, and provides some nice insight into how these things go.
  • Junkscience ... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Xiver (13712) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @01:03PM (#3366218)
    If you like Voodoo Science check out http://www.junkscience.com They bring up these kind of issues on a daily basis.
  • by goodviking (71533) on Thursday April 18, 2002 @01:13PM (#3366314) Journal
    It was about an alleged anti-gravity disc...

    The anti-gravity disc has been around for over 25 years. It was perfected by "Tensor" and is called "Tensor's Floating Disc". People, it's a level 1 spell for goodness sake! Doesn't anyone keep up with the literature?
  • And all this time I thought this book was about 3Dfx graphics cards.
  • Preferences -> Customize Slashdot's Display
    -> Exclude Stories from the Homepage
    -> Authors -> [X] chrisd

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...