Editing Voodoo Science (section)

==Reception==

Matt Nisbet in the ''[[Skeptical Inquirer]]'' noted that the reaction to ''Voodoo Science'' has been mostly favorable.<ref>
Matt Nisbet. (2001). [http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/a_look_back_at_the_best_skeptic_book_of_2000/ "A Look Back at the Best Skeptic Book of 2000"]. Csicop.org. Retrieved 2014-07-12.</ref>

Bob Goldstein in a book review for ''[[Nature Cell Biology]]'' described Park as an equivalent to [[Richard Dawkins]] and [[Stephen Jay Gould]], scientific writers who have "talent for defending a view of the world that is perfectly rational and free of witchcraft and superstition."<ref>Bob Goldstein. (2000). ''The Professional Debunker (review of the book Voodoo Science: the Road from Foolishness to Fraud, by Robert L. Park)''. ''[[Nature Cell Biology]]''. Vol 2. p. 212.</ref>

American chemist [[Nicholas Turro]] wrote "the book is entertaining and provocative reading... Whether or not you agree with Park's take on voodoo science, a message of the book is that if scientists do not take a more significant role in the way that science is disseminated to the public and especially to politicians, voodoo science will continue to survive."<ref>[[Nicholas Turro]]. (2002). ''Book Review: Voodoo Science. The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Edited by Robert L. Park''. ''[[Angewandte Chemie]]''. Vol. 41, Issue 14. p. 2436.</ref>

The mathematician Malcolm Sherman in the ''[[American Scientist]]'' gave the book a positive review stating "Park does more than analyze and expose various kinds of bad ("voodoo") science. He demonstrates how valid science is distorted or ignored by the media and by those (including scientists) seeking to influence public policy."<ref>Malcolm J. Sherman. (2000). [http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/exposing-fools-gladly "Exposing Fools Gladly"]. ''[[American Scientist]]''. Vol. 88, No. 5. pp. 461-462.</ref> The physicist Kenneth R. Foster also positively reviewed the book concluding "Park is an articulate and skeptical voice of reason about science."<ref>Kenneth R. Foster. (2000). ''Unreal Science''. ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]''. New Series, Vol. 288, No. 5471. p. 1595.</ref>

Reviewing the book for ''[[The New York Times]]'', [[Ed Regis (author)|Ed Regis]] compared it positively to the 1957 book by [[Martin Gardner]], ''[[Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science]]'', calling ''Voodoo Science'' a "worthy successor" and praising it for explaining why various purportedly scientific claims were in fact impossible.<ref name="Regis2000"/> Science writer [[Kendrick Frazier]] wrote "Robert Park has brought us a book that has a freshness and originality—and an importance and potential for influence—perhaps not seen since Gardner’s first."<ref>[[Kendrick Frazier]]. (2000). ''Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud''. ''[[Physics Today]]''. Vol 53, No. 10. pp. 78-80.</ref>

Robin McKie for ''[[The Observer]]'' described it as "an admirable analysis: wittily written, vivid and put together without a hint of malice."<ref>
Robin McKie. (2002). [https://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/mar/17/features.review1 "Paperback of the Week"]. ''[[The Observer]]''.</ref>

Rachel Hay in a review wrote that Park had "debunked expertly" pseudoscience topics such as [[homeopathy]], [[cold fusion]] and [[perpetual motion|perpetual motion machines]] but the book is not easily accessible to students.<ref>Rachel Hays. (2001). ''Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park''. ''[[National Association of Biology Teachers|The American Biology Teacher]]''. Vol. 63, No. 2. p. 140</ref> However, S. Elizabeth Bird an anthropology professor recommended it for "students who need to establish a grasp of the scientific method."<ref>S. Elizabeth Bird. (2002). ''Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert L. Park''. ''[[Human Biology (journal)|Human Biology]]''. Vol. 74, No. 4. pp. 621-623.</ref>

Bruce Lewenstein wrote a critical review claiming Park had lumped together [[pathological science]], junk science, pseudoscience and fraud all together as voodoo science but this is problematic as "each category alone is fraught with definitional, historical, and analytical difficulties."<ref>Bruce V. Lewenstein. (2004). ''Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud''. ''[[Isis (journal)|Isis]]''. Vol. 95, No. 2. p. 341,</ref> [[Brian Josephson]] wrote that the book, while giving "the official story regarding a number of 'mistaken beliefs' ", did not provide "the additional information that might lead one to conclude that the official view does not tell the whole story."<ref>{{cite web|last1=Josephson|first1=Brian|title=Grey areas on the blacklist|url=http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/books/grey-areas-on-the-blacklist/155556.article|website=[[Times Higher Education|Times Higher Education Supplement]]|date=December 2000|access-date=18 August 2014}}</ref>