New Scientist

Magazine Overview

Title: New Scientist
Issue Date: 9 December 2006
Document Type: Magazine Issue

This issue of New Scientist features a prominent article by Bob Park titled "Watch out for the UFOs," which delves into the complexities of evaluating unconventional claims and distinguishing them from established scientific thought. The magazine also touches upon the MMR vaccine and autism controversy in the UK, and the broader nature of scientific inquiry versus dogma.

"Lone Voices" by Bob Park

Bob Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and author of "Voodoo Science," contributes an article exploring the challenges of navigating "outsider science." He begins by acknowledging the inherent tension in science between maintaining social control and allowing room for new ideas. Park lists several historical figures whose ideas were initially considered outside the mainstream, such as Martin Fleischmann (cold fusion), Eric Laithwaite (anomalous gyroscopes), Albert Einstein (relativity), Linus Pauling (vitamin C), Alfred Wegener (plate tectonics), Thomas Gold (origin of oil), David Duesberg (non-viral causes of AIDS), and Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes).

Park notes that while some "outsider science" is genuinely innovative, others are not. He uses the MMR vaccine and autism affair in the UK as a prime example. He criticizes the public presentation of this issue as a genuine scientific controversy, stating that Andrew Wakefield, the doctor behind the claims, published evidence suggesting a link between autism and measles-related virus particles in the gut, but these particles were never linked to the MMR vaccine. Despite word-of-mouth testimony from some parents, no link between MMR and autism was ever proven. Wakefield simply speculated about a relationship at a press conference, and no one has gone further than to hypothesize about it. Park asserts that the only usable scientific evidence available, which was epidemiological, pointed to the safety of MMR. He argues that the energy spent dealing with Wakefield's claims could have been better used, as Wakefield was not behaving as a scientific outsider but rather was not providing scientific evidence.

Park discusses the difficulty scientists face in proving a negative and their unwillingness to confront the social and financial logic driving their choices. He suggests that when scientists refute claims, it can sometimes undermine their own claims for science. He posits that scientists should be pragmatic, stating "Well, it's not inconceivable, I can't absolutely prove you wrong, but my time is better spent doing things I judge to have more potential."

He argues that scientists are not always their own best friends when helping others navigate uncertainty. He also critiques the tendency for some scientists, like Richard Dawkins, to insist that scientists must be atheists, and the elevation of figures like Stephen Hawking into "religious icons." This, he contends, turns science into "revealed truth," obscuring the hard work, experimentation, and potential for failure inherent in the scientific process. Park warns that such approaches threaten to replace old faiths with new ones, creating a pyrrhic victory over religion.

Park emphasizes that science is essentially ordinary life conducted in extraordinary circumstances. It must contradict literal interpretations of texts that clash with its findings but should not claim the right to address deeper questions of existence. The greatest danger for science, he states, is crashing to the ground by missing its footing on the tightrope of certainty. In social sciences, this danger is exemplified by the romantic notion that the general public's instincts are as wise, or wiser, than experts. While acknowledging the political necessity of considering public "preferences," he stresses that this should not be confused with technological or scientific "wisdom," as that path leads to an undesirable society.

He concludes that while there is no easy way to sift every claim, there are good and bad judgments, which form a safety net against scientific populism. This populism evades the hard search for knowledge by giving equal weight to everyone's frame of reference. Park insists on the importance of the idea that judgment, though imperfect, is generally better made by those who know what they are talking about.

"Watch out for the UFOs" by Bob Park

In this article, Bob Park addresses the challenge of distinguishing between a robust challenge to established thinking and an idea that is "plain off-the-wall." He describes receiving numerous unsolicited books and articles from individuals who claim to have found flaws in established theories or discovered new energy sources, often related to government cover-ups of UFOs.

Park states that he does not struggle through all such work on the off-chance that the authors are correct, citing that "Life's too short, and the warning signs are too obvious." He rarely needs to look past the title page. He explains that science relies on the human brain's ability to detect patterns, a skill evolved for survival. This same brain can also compose sonnets and solve differential equations. Pattern recognition is fundamental to aesthetic enjoyment and scientific discovery.

However, Park warns of the fine line between recognizing subtle patterns and apophenia, which is the experience of seeing patterns where none exist. He mentions Linus Pauling, a Nobel laureate, who in his later years imagined that massive doses of vitamin C cured disease, as an example of apophenia in a brilliant mind. Despite this, Park acknowledges that the pillars of modern science may have cracks, citing the lack of understanding in quantum mechanics and potential problems with Einstein's field equations. He also notes the rise of behavioral science as a new frontier, revolutionized by fMRI imaging and genomics.

Park concludes that the scientific process accounts for cracks, shortcomings, and changes, whereas "cranks" are primarily a threat to unwary investors. For scientists, they are a background noise, annoying but rarely interfering with genuine discourse.

Profile: Bob Park

The issue includes a profile of Bob Park, identifying him as a professor of physics at the University of Maryland, College Park. He is the author of "Voodoo Science: The road from foolishness to fraud," published by Oxford University Press. His weekly column is available at www.bobpark.org.

Recurring Themes and Editorial Stance

The issue strongly advocates for rigorous scientific methodology, critical thinking, and skepticism towards unsubstantiated claims, particularly in the realm of pseudoscience and conspiracy theories. The editorial stance appears to be one that values evidence-based reasoning and warns against the dangers of scientific populism and the uncritical acceptance of "outsider" ideas. There is a clear emphasis on the importance of the scientific method as the sole reliable way of knowing, contrasting it with dogma and blind faith.