Jennifer Ouellette

The Scrooge of science

In his book "Voodoo Science," physicist Robert Park responds to alternative medicine and cold fusion with a resounding "Bah, humbug!"

  • more
    • All Share Services

The Scrooge of science

They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” – Carl Sagan

When USA Today carried a full-page ad last year for a mysterious tincture called “Vitamin O,” described as “stabilized oxygen molecules in a solution of distilled water and sodium chloride,” few noticed that the ad was describing common salt water. Clearly, the manufacturer, Rose Creek Health Products, was betting on the public’s unfamiliarity with scientific lingo to make a killing in the lucrative homeopathic market. It seemed a pretty safe bet: The company was selling 60,000 of the 2-ounce vials each month, retailing at $20 apiece, after ads promised Vitamin O would increase energy and even cure cancer. The premise was that our bodies need oxygen to function well but air quality is so poor that most of us don’t get the oxygen we need.

Then Robert Park, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, exposed the scam in his provocative weekly electronic newsletter, “What’s New,” which reports on science issues. A subsequent interview with Park on National Public Radio raised enough public pressure to cause the Federal Trade Commission to investigate. Three months later, the FTC charged the supplier with fraud and ultimately closed down the company.

The Vitamin O scheme is an example of pseudoscience, also known as junk science or, as Park has dubbed it, “voodoo science.” The label encompasses all manner of scientific concepts and claims that are wrong by established academic standards, yet attract large followings of passionate and sometimes powerful corporate and government allies. Although it has been present throughout human history, junk science has become increasingly sophisticated — and more difficult for the layperson to detect — because of the explosion in scientific progress and technological advancement.

Pseudoscience is a perennial bugbear for legitimate researchers, an increasing number of whom are beginning to sound the alarm. Along with the late Carl Sagan, Park is among the most stalwart champions of the cause. A 70-ish, bantamweight man who regularly runs triathlons, Park has been battling the many-headed Hydra of pseudoscience for the past 16 years through his role as director of public affairs for the American Physical Society, the largest professional organization for physicists in the country.

“It’s a target-rich field,” Park says. Many of his favorite targets are skewered in his first book for a general readership, “Voodoo Science: The Road From Foolishness to Fraud,” due this spring from Oxford University Press. The book attempts to debunk today’s most foolish scientific claims: magnetic therapy, cold fusion, so-called free-energy schemes and alien abductions, to name a few. In the process, Park investigates how otherwise respectable scientists may end up committing scientific fraud; how our evolutionary heritage makes us want to believe in an era when belief is a hindrance rather than a protective mechanism; and how the public can distinguish false claims from genuine breakthroughs in a time of unprecedented scientific progress.

Park is a master of the snappy sound bite. When the Kansas Board of Education voted to remove evolution from the public school curriculum last fall, Park dryly observed, “The rest of the world is standing on the brink of a new millennium, and Kansas has voted itself back into the Stone Age.” Network news teams, radio talk shows and newspapers frequently feature him as the token skeptic when reporting on questionable scientific results. Park always delivers with his trademark acid tongue.

Park’s zeal in ferreting out junk science has made him a controversial figure, hailed as a patron saint by skeptics and condemned by true believers as an archenemy of progress. Supporters include magician and fellow debunker James Randi; detractors include psychic spoon bender Uri Geller. Another detractor is Nicholas Nossaman, a Denver family medical practitioner who relies almost exclusively on homeopathic remedies for his patients — the popularity of which Park attributes sweepingly to the placebo effect.

“When someone in a particular scientific paradigm is introduced to something that doesn’t fit that paradigm, either they’ve got to extend their boundaries, or they have to insist that it doesn’t exist,” says Nossaman. “Right now they’ve chosen not to extend their boundaries.” Nossaman acknowledges the existence of the placebo effect, but points out that it is also present in traditional medicine and that the effects are usually short-term rather than long-term cures. “I don’t care if Bob Park is convinced or not,” he says. “All I care about is that people get better.”

Among scientists, opinion is sharply divided as to whether Park helps or hinders the cause, since his outspokenness frequently offends powers that be in Washington even as it garners coveted media attention. Since many scientists rely on federal funding, Park’s bombastic style worries some researchers. In fact, the American Physical Society requires him to include a disclaimer at the end of his electronic newsletter, which nonetheless bears the inimitable Park imprint: “Opinions are the author’s and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.”

Nor does his brash, highhanded approach always appeal to members of the general public, many of whom perceive him as an arrogant know-it-all poking fun at the public’s expense, particularly when he targets alternative medicine, which now has its own branch at the National Institutes of Health, thanks to congressional influence. But in “Voodoo Science,” Park proves himself to be more than just a snide spoilsport intent on pissing on everyone’s parade. Snappy sound bites might help bring science into the spotlight, but Park’s ultimate objective is nothing less than a revolution in public thinking: imparting a sense of healthy skepticism to enable us to recognize bad science.

Consider the long and colorful history of free-energy schemes, which date from 1618, when a London physician named Robert Fludd tried to adapt a waterwheel into a perpetual-motion machine. His modern-day counterpart is Joe Newman, a backwoods mechanic from Lucedale, Miss., who claims to have invented an energy machine that operates on similar principles. Unfortunately for Fludd and Newman, such schemes violate the laws of thermodynamics, which dictate that friction and gravity prevent an object from spinning indefinitely — a fact so widely accepted that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office generally rejects applications for perpetual-motion machines outright.

But like the medieval alchemists who devoted their lives to turning base metal into gold, such men continue to pursue the pipe dream of an unlimited source of energy. Park knows of at least three companies doing business in this country that claim to have developed infinite-energy devices, bilking millions of dollars out of starry-eyed investors. Inevitably, the inventors seek to silence detractors by likening themselves to Newton or Galileo: scientific geniuses ahead of their time who are thwarted by a closed scientific establishment.

Despite its reputation for skepticism, the media frequently contributes to the proliferation of pseudoscience, sometimes fanning the flames of public hysteria. Conspiracy fears were at the center of the decade-long power line scare, based on a 1989 series of articles in the New Yorker by investigative reporter Paul Brodeur that asserted that prolonged exposure to the electromagnetic fields of power lines caused cancer in those unfortunate enough to live near them. Brodeur made a convincing case, drawing on the findings of an early study (now widely acknowledged as flawed because the number of subjects was limited) and circumstantial, anecdotal evidence.

While anecdotes make for powerful journalism, they are not sufficient to establish a link in a scientific study. Unlike the link between cigarettes and cancer, which has been repeatedly borne out by a multitude of studies, a series of comprehensive double-blind studies found no evidence of a similar link between power lines and cancer.

That revelation came at a high public cost. By 1999, the total cost of the power line scare, including the relocation of power lines and the loss in property values, was estimated at more than $25 billion by the White House Science Office. The only person who seems to have benefited from the hysteria is Brodeur, who wrote two sensational books based on his New Yorker series: “Currents of Death” and “The Great Power Line Cover-up.” Now retired, he persists in his belief in a widespread conspiracy despite the mounting pile of epidemiological evidence to the contrary.

Park’s efforts occasionally have happy endings, as in the Vitamin O scam and power line controversy. Yet for every head of Hydra he manages to lop off, another grows back in its place. “No matter how thoroughly you think something is debunked, believers still persist,” Park marvels. “It’s a mistake to underestimate the human capacity for self-delusion,” he concludes. For example, sales of magnetic-therapy kits topped $2 billion last year, buoyed by endorsements from pro golfers and other athletes. Yet, retailing for $39.95, they are little more than common refrigerator magnets in flashy packaging, with magnetic fields too weak to penetrate the material in which they are encased, much less have any noticeable effect on tired or strained muscles.

Another Park peeve is the ongoing public fascination with UFOs and alleged alien abductions, fueled by a slew of Hollywood films and popular TV series — and undaunted by the CIA’s revelation that more than half of all UFO sightings from the late 1950s and 1960s were secret reconnaissance flights by U-2 spy planes. Park has seen only one episode of “The X-Files,” at his son’s urging, and was duly unimpressed, except for one small detail: the poster in Fox Mulder’s office depicting a UFO, with the slogan “I want to believe.”

Therein lies the secret behind the pervasiveness of pseudoscience: People want to believe, and they will distort and deny the facts any way they can to support a belief. “Many people choose scientific beliefs the same way they choose to be Methodists or Democrats or Chicago Cubs fans,” Park writes. “They judge science by how well it agrees with the way they want the world to be.” The solution, he insists, lies not in imparting specific knowledge of science to the public but in encouraging a more scientific worldview, which he describes as “an understanding that we live in an orderly universe governed by natural laws that cannot be circumvented by magic or miracles.”

But even an astute skeptic can be duped, as Park learned from his own close encounter. In the summer of 1954, he was a young Air Force lieutenant stationed at Walker Air Force Base in Roswell, N.M. While driving back to base late one night along a deserted stretch of highway, he witnessed a spectacular blue-green light streaking across the sky. As a physicist, Park recognized the phenomenon for what it was: an ice meteorite plunging into the upper atmosphere and emitting a blue-green fluorescence upon entry. Congratulating himself on his keen insight, he continued on his way.

That’s when he saw it: a shiny metallic disk hovering low in the sky that bore an unmistakable resemblance to a flying saucer. For a moment, his smug, rational world turned upside down — and then he realized the apparition was merely his car’s headlights reflecting off of a single telephone line running parallel to the highway.

Park admits it was a humbling experience. “I was primed to see a flying saucer [by the powerful impression of the ice meteorite], and my brain filled in the details,” he writes. “Whenever I become impatient with UFO believers, as I often do, I try to remember that night in New Mexico when, for a few seconds, I believed in flying saucers.”

The call of the past

The strange echo resembling a bird's call in the Mayan Temple of Kukulkan has two disparate academic fields collaborating. Will acoustical archaeology dig up the next batch of history?

  • more
    • All Share Services

Visitors to the Mayan Temple of Kukulkan at Chichen Itza in Central Mexico have long been fascinated by an unusual sound effect of the ancient structure: A mere handclap at the bottom of one of the massive staircases produces a piercing echo, similar to a shriek. To some, the echo sounds eerily like the call of the quetzal, a brightly colored exotic bird native to the region and prized for its long, resplendent tail feathers. The echo effect is so pronounced that it has raised a provocative question: Could the Maya have deliberately designed the pyramid to emit the distinctive sound?

Until recently, this question seemed unanswerable. How, after all, does one prove intent when the architects of a building have been dead for a millennium? But thanks to an emerging new field — acoustical archaeology — it may now be possible to shed new light on this and other enduring mysteries once thought to be irretrievably locked in the past. Taking a literal riff on the German poet Goethe’s reference to architecture as “frozen music,” acoustical archaeologists believe important information about the past can be gleaned from the acoustics of ancient structures.

The unusually sophisticated acoustics of Mayan temples have puzzled visitors for years. And understandably so: In the Great Ball Court at Chichen Itza — 545 feet long and 225 feet wide — a whisper at one end can be heard clearly at the other. But sound is an aspect that, until now, has largely been ignored by archaeologists. Nor have acousticians taken much interest in work usually done by archaeologists. But the traditional boundaries that have kept the two fields apart are beginning to blur as a handful of respected acousticians apply their expertise to such acoustical phenomena.

Among them is David Lubman, an acoustical consultant in Westminster, Calif., who frequently serves as an expert witness in civil and criminal trials. That’s his bread and butter. His passion is studying the strange acoustical effects of ancient Mayan architecture, particularly at Chichen Itza, a former Maya-Toltec city in the northern Yucatan region of Mexico. Intrigued by the debate surrounding the mysterious chirped echo, he is the first to make scientific measurements of the echo and provide a scientifically credible explanation of its cause.

The science behind the sound turns out to be quite simple. Staircases are periodic elements — that is, they are repeated at regular intervals in a region of space. The gaps in the step faces constitute a diffraction grating, causing a series of periodic sound-wave reflections, or tonal echoes — a phenomenon commonly known as a “picket fence effect.” Lubman likens the effect to a rainbow. “An optical diffraction grating transforms white light, spreading its frequencies over space,” he explains. “An acoustical diffraction grating transforms white noise by spreading its frequencies over time.” The chirped echo, in other words, is a rainbow of sound.

Lubman compared sound recordings of a quetzal chirping in its natural rain-forest habitat and the echo. They weren’t identical, but he found striking similarities in sound quality, frequency, length and harmonic structure — striking enough to convince him that the echo was intentionally designed to mimic the quetzal’s call.

His discovery sparked considerable excitement and controversy, especially among archaeologists. Other examples of tonal echoes can be found in classical architecture, such as the ancient amphitheater at Epidaurus, in Greece. But these are largely believed to be the result of design defects. Lubman’s theory of deliberate design implies that the essentially Stone Age Mayan people possessed a grasp of engineering and acoustical principles far beyond what archaeologists thought possible. If Lubman’s theory proves correct, the pyramid at Chichen Itza would be the world’s first and oldest sound recording, and the Maya the earliest known inventors of the soundscape — a concept only recently employed by modern urban artists to create sonic architecture, such as sound parks.

Few doubt that the quetzal held a place of honor in Mayan culture. Mayan priests are believed to have performed their theatrical ceremonies draped in quetzal feathers, accentuating their larger-than-life appearance. Following the Spanish conquest of Central America, the quetzal became a symbol of freedom for the indigenous people of the region, since it was believed that the bird could not long survive in captivity. Although near extinction today, the quetzal is the national bird of Guatemala and the name of its primary unit of currency. And in what some call a critical piece of circumstantial evidence, a Mayan glyph from the Dresden Codex depicts the serpent god Kukulkan with a giant quetzal behind him.

Lubman sees further proof in the pyramid’s famous “shadow show.” The temple is aligned astronomically so that during the spring and fall equinox, an undulating serpentine shadow projects against the balustrades of the north side of the staircase. “The quetzal sound could have been evoked by a priestly handclap made at a critical moment in the ceremony,” Lubman says. “This would reinforce the dramatic impact and religious purpose.”

But does it all add up to intentional design? Samuel Edgerton, an architectural historian at Williams College in Massachusetts, has his doubts. “It’s an interesting theory and there’s a certain validity to it,” he says, citing instances where the Maya are known to have used architecture to denote spiritual symbolism. It is also clear that, in an age without electronic amplification, the Maya designed their buildings with acoustical concerns in mind. “But it’s limited, as far as we know, to human sounds. To have it replicate the call of a bird is getting to be a stretch.” He believes Lubman may be overstating the relevance of the quetzal to the temple at Chichen Itza. “The quetzal bird had a semi-sacredness to the Maya, but more for its colorful feathers,” he says. “There’s no solid evidence that it was ever worshiped or transmogrified into a god or deity.”

Those native to the region seem less skeptical. While visiting ceremonial centers in Mexico, Chilean archaeologist and ethnomusicologist Claudio Mercado was told by locals that the echo effect is known locally as “la cola del quetzal,” or “the quetzal’s tail.” His colleague, Jose Perez de Arce, a specialist in pre-Columbian musical instruments, heard similar reports while visiting the same regions, lending further credence to Lubman’s theory. But George Izenour, a fellow acoustical archaeologist who specializes in the acoustics of Western classical structures, shares the archaeological community’s skepticism: “It’s all nonsense, but it’s charming nonsense.”

Edgerton and Lubman agree on one point: The Maya would most likely have discovered such effects by accident, developing their unique acoustical architecture by trial and error over time. “There’s no evidence whatsoever in the history of architecture, until the middle of the 16th century A.D., where any builder made drawings to scale on paper a priori and then constructed it afterwards,” says Edgerton. “Not that the Maya couldn’t have done that; they just didn’t.” He believes the same is true of the serpentine shadow at Chichen Itza, even though academia’s most famous Mayanist, the late Linda Schele, believed the Maya deliberately planned the stunning effect. “It’s so unique and so remarkable that the debate is understandable,” Edgerton says. “But I have to defend what I know about ancient architecture.”

Edgerton admits he would find the theory more convincing if there were more than one instance of such an effect in Mayan architecture. No problem, says Lubman, pointing to similar phenomena reported at the Mayan pyramid at Tikal in Guatemala, and at the Pyramid of the Magicians in Uxmals, Mexico. In fact, one could expect to hear such echoes from any Mayan temple with a stone staircase facing an open plaza. “It’s much easier to find reports of these echoes than it is to get archaeologists to investigate them,” he says.

Nor are the unusual acoustical effects at Mayan sites limited to tonal echoes. Guides in Tulum on the Yucatan coast will report that the temple there emits a clear, long-range whistle when the wind direction and velocity are just right — a possible signal to warn of developing storms. Then there are Chichen Itza’s “musical phalluses”: a set of artillery-shell-shaped stones that produce clear, nearly melodic tones when tapped with a wooden mallet.

“Echo chambers” similar to the Great Ball Court can be found in many European domed cathedrals — most notably St. Paul’s in London and St. Peter’s in Rome — and the large theater near Syracuse in Sicily, known as the “Ear of Dionysus.” In each case, the amplification is created by sound waves echoing off the curved surfaces of the dome. But the Great Ball Court has no vaulted ceiling to provide the requisite curved surface for the reflections, and although theories abound, the source of its amplification is still not fully understood. The famed conductor Leopold Stowkowski of the Philadelphia Symphony Orchestra spent four days at the site in 1931, determined to uncover the ingenious design principles behind the effect, hoping to adapt them to an open-air concert theater he was designing. He left empty-handed.

Questions of intent aside, Edgerton recognizes the benefits archaeology could gain from acoustical expertise. Still, he urges a cautious collaboration. “Let us reconstruct from what we know, rather than conjecturing about birds.”

The rest of the archaeological community seems to be slowly coming around: Lubman recently presented his first paper at an archaeology meeting, the first non-archaeologist to do so, albeit with traditional “crackpot” placement: dead last in a contributed session. But the response was cautiously positive and he’s been asked to contribute an article to a prominent Mayan journal on the topic. Acousticians are responding in kind. Next month’s meeting of the Acoustical Society of America will feature an entire session devoted to the work of acoustical archaeologists.

To Lubman, the fledgling field of acoustical archaeology can only augment traditional archaeology’s long list of accomplishments in rediscovering our human past. And he remains convinced of his theory about Chichen Itza’s chirped echo. “It’s ironic that an entity as ephemeral as sound can persist longer than the creators of the space,” he says. “Where else in the world have an ancient people preserved a sacred sound by coding it into stone, so that a thousand years later, people might hear it and wonder?”

Continue Reading Close