Search results for 'Pseudoscience' (try it on Scholar)

120 found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Behind Pseudoscience (2009). The Philosophy Behind Pseudoscience. In Kendrick Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus. 235.score: 150.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Nicholas Shackel (2013). Pseudoscience and Idiosyncratic Theories of Rational Belief. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (eds.), The Philosophy of Pseudoscience. University of Chicago Press. 417.score: 21.0
    I take pseudoscience to be a pretence at science. Pretences are innumerable, limited only by our imagination and credulity. As Stove points out, ‘numerology is actually quite as different from astrology as astrology is from astronomy’ (Stove 1991, 187). We are sure that ‘something has gone appallingly wrong’ (Stove 1991, 180) and yet ‘thoughts…can go wrong in a multiplicity of ways, none of which anyone yet understands’ (Stove 1991, 190). Often all we can do is give a careful description (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (2013). Prove It! The Burden of Proof Game in Science Vs. Pseudoscience Disputes. Philosophia 42 (2):487-502.score: 18.0
    The concept of burden of proof is used in a wide range of discourses, from philosophy to law, science, skepticism, and even in everyday reasoning. This paper provides an analysis of the proper deployment of burden of proof, focusing in particular on skeptical discussions of pseudoscience and the paranormal, where burden of proof assignments are most poignant and relatively clear-cut. We argue that burden of proof is often misapplied or used as a mere rhetorical gambit, with little appreciation of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Massimo Pigliucci (2013). Pseudoscience. In Byron Kaldis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. SAGE.score: 18.0
    The term pseudoscience refers to a highly heterogeneous set of practices, beliefs, and claims sharing the property of appearing to be scientific when in fact they contradict either scientific findings or the methods by which science proceeds. Classic examples of pseudoscience include astrology, parapsychology, and ufology; more recent entries are the denial of a causal link between the HIV virus and AIDS or the claim that vaccines cause autism. To distinguish between science and pseudoscience is part of (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Andrew Lugg (1995). Pseudoscience as Structurally Flawed Practice: A Reply to A.A. Derksen. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science 26 (2):323 - 326.score: 18.0
    I respond to two criticisms levelled by A. A. Derksen in a recent issue of this journal against characterizing pseudoscience as structurally flawed practice: I argue that he surreptitiously invokes this conception, his official view that we should concentrate on pseudoscientists' pretensions rather than their practices notwithstanding; and I critically examine his contention that judgements of scientificity (and pseudoscientificity) cannot properly be made independently of a consideration of whether the relevant theories and practices are empirically well-confirmed.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Michael D. Gordin (2012). How Lysenkoism Became Pseudoscience: Dobzhansky to Velikovsky. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 45 (3):443 - 468.score: 18.0
    At some point in America in the 1940s, T. D. Lysenko's neo-Lamarckian hereditary theories transformed from a set of disputed doctrines into a prime exemplar of "pseudoscience." This paper explores the context in which this theory acquired this pejorative status by examining American efforts to refute Lysenkoism both before and after the famous August 1948 endorsement of Lysenko's doctrines by the Stalinist state, with particular attention to the translation efforts of Theodosius Dobzhansky. After enumerating numerous tactics for combating perceived (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Maarten Boudry & Filip Buekens (2011). The Epistemic Predicament of a Pseudoscience: Social Constructivism Confronts Freudian Psychoanalysis. Theoria 77 (2):159-179.score: 15.0
    Social constructivist approaches to science have often been dismissed as inaccurate accounts of scientific knowledge. In this article, we take the claims of robust social constructivism (SC) seriously and attempt to find a theory which does instantiate the epistemic predicament as described by SC. We argue that Freudian psychoanalysis, in virtue of some of its well-known epistemic complications and conceptual confusions, provides a perfect illustration of what SC claims is actually going on in science. In other words, the features SC (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Maarten Boudry (2013). The Hypothesis That Saves the Day: Ad Hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience. Logique Et Analyse 223:245-258.score: 15.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Tomislav Bracanović (2012). From Integrative Bioethics to Pseudoscience. Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):148-156.score: 15.0
    Integrative bioethics is a brand of bioethics conceived and propagated by a group of Croatian philosophers and other scholars. This article discusses and shows that the approach encounters several serious difficulties. In criticizing certain standard views on bioethics and in presenting their own, the advocates of integrative bioethics fall into various conceptual confusions and inconsistencies. Although presented as a project that promises to deal with moral dilemmas created by modern science and technology, integrative bioethics does not contain the slightest normativity (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (2013). Why the Demarcation Problem Matters. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem.score: 12.0
    Ever since Socrates, philosophers have been in the business of asking ques- tions of the type “What is X?” The point has not always been to actually find out what X is, but rather to explore how we think about X, to bring up to the surface wrong ways of thinking about it, and hopefully in the process to achieve an increasingly better understanding of the matter at hand. In the early part of the twentieth century one of the most (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Massimo Pigliucci (2009). Do Extraordinary Claims Really Require Extraordinary Evidence? In K. Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus.score: 12.0
    To what extend does David Hume's argument about miracles inform modern skepticism about pseudoscience?
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Paul R. Thagard (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:223 - 234.score: 12.0
    Using astrology as a case study, this paper attempts to establish a criterion for demarcating science from pseudoscience. Numerous reasons for considering astrology to be a pseudoscience are evaluated and rejected; verifiability and falsifiability are briefly discussed. A theory is said to be pseudoscientific if and only if (1) it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems, but (2) the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Martin Mahner (2013). Science and Pseudoscience How to Demarcate After the (Alleged) Demise. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 29.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Barbara Forrest (2013). Navigating the Landscape Between Science and Religious Pseudoscience. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 263.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Jean Paul van Bendegem (2013). Argumentation and Pseudoscience The Case for an Ethics ofArgumentation. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Ii—Iarry Frankfurt (2013). From Pseudoscience. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 45.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Erich Goode (2013). Paranormalism and Pseudoscience. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 145.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Daniel P. Thurs & Ronald L. Numbers (2013). Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Falsely So-CaIIed. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 121.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Michael Shermer (2013). Science and Pseudoscience The Difference in Practice and the Difference/T Makes. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 203.score: 12.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Massimo Pigliucci (2013). The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. 9.score: 9.0
    The “demarcation problem,” the issue of how to separate science from pseu- doscience, has been around since fall 1919—at least according to Karl Pop- per’s (1957) recollection of when he first started thinking about it. In Popper’s mind, the demarcation problem was intimately linked with one of the most vexing issues in philosophy of science, David Hume’s problem of induction (Vickers 2010) and, in particular, Hume’s contention that induction cannot be logically justified by appealing to the fact that “it works,” (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Massimo Pigliucci (2009). Is Intelligent Design Creationism? In Kendrick Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus.score: 9.0
    Intelligent Design proponents want to distinguish themselves from creationists. But the distinction appears to be without a difference.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Massimo Pigliucci (2010). Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk. University of Chicago Press.score: 9.0
    Introduction : science versus pseudoscience and the "demarcation problem" -- Hard science, soft science -- Almost science -- Pseudoscience -- Blame the media? -- Debates on science : the rise of think tanks and the decline of public intellectuals -- Science and politics : the case of global warming -- Science in the courtroom : the case against intelligent design -- From superstition to natural philosophy -- From natural philosophy to modern science -- The science wars I : (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. George A. Reisch (1998). Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of Pseudoscience. Philosophy of Science 65 (2):333-348.score: 9.0
    I criticize conceptual pluralism, as endorsed recently by John Dupre and Philip Kitcher, for failing to supply strategies for demarcating science from non-science. Using creation-science as a test case, I argue that pluralism blocks arguments that keep creation-science in check and that metaphysical pluralism offers it positive, metaphysical support. Logical empiricism, however, still provides useful resources to reconfigure and manage the problem of creation-science in those practical and political contexts where pluralism will fail.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Massimo Pigliucci (2000). Tales of the Rational: Skeptical Essays About Nature and Science. Freethought Press.score: 9.0
    If evolutionary biologist Massimo Pigliucci didn't exist, it would be necessary to invent him. His Tales of the Rational defines an intellectual space as far removed as hardcore religious fundamentalism from mainstream thinking--but it may be coming closer as scientists and skeptics launch more aggressive attacks on pseudoscience and fuzzy thinking. Pigliucci, a rising star on the evolution-creationism debate circuit, pulls out all the stops in his work, not content merely to defend science against its detractors, but eagerly undermining (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Boyce Rensberger (2000). Why Scientists Should Cooperate with Journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics 6 (4):549-552.score: 9.0
    Despite a widespread impression that the public is woefully ignorant of science and cares little for the subject, U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) surveys show the majority are very interested and understand that they are not well informed about science. The data are consistent with the author’s view that the popularity of pseudoscience does not indicate a rejection of science. If this is so, opportunities for scientists to communicate with the public promise a more rewarding result than is commonly (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. James E. Alcock (1998). Science, Pseudoscience, and Anomaly. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):303-303.score: 9.0
    My criticisms of parapsychology are neither based on its subject matter per se, nor simply on a charge of sloppy research, but rather on the whole pattern of theory and research in this domain. The lack of a positive definition of psi, the use of ad hoc principles such as psi-missing and the experimenter psi effect to account for failures to confirm hypotheses, and the failure to produce a single phenomenon that can be replicated by neutral investigators are among the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. E. M. Dadlez, William L. Andrews, Courtney Lewis & Marissa Stroud (2009). Rape, Evolution, and Pseudoscience: Natural Selection in the Academy. Journal of Social Philosophy 40 (1):75-96.score: 9.0
  28. Tomislav Bracanovic (2002). The Referee's Dilemma. The Ethics of Scientific Communities and Game Theory. Prolegomena 1 (1):55-74.score: 9.0
    This article argues that various deviations from the basic principles of the scientific ethos – primarily the appearance of pseudoscience in scientific communities – can be formulated and explained using specific models of game theory, such as the prisoner’s dilemma and the iterated prisoner’s dilemma. The article indirectly tackles the deontology of scientific work as well, in which it is assumed that there is no room for moral skepticism, let alone moral anti-realism, in the ethics of scientific communities. Namely, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Maarten Boudry & Johan Braeckman (2011). Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms. Philosophia 39 (1):145-161.score: 9.0
    An immunizing strategy is an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic defense mechanism is defined as a structural feature of a belief system which has the same effect of deflecting arguments and evidence. We discuss the remarkable recurrence of certain patterns of immunizing strategies and defense mechanisms in pseudoscience and other belief systems. Five (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Victor J. Stenger, ESP and Cold Fusion Parallels in Pseudoscience.score: 9.0
    By the late nineteenth century, science was well established in the public mind as the primary method by which useful knowledge of the material universe is obtained. Surely, it was thought, if science can discover cathode rays and radio waves, then it should easily authenticate a phenomenon that is far more widely experienced: the supernatural power of the human mind. Non-physical, “psychic” energy appeared to be everywhere, as an integral part of human experience. Indeed, psychic forces are seemingly built into (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Arthurstill & Windydryden (2004). The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (3):265–290.score: 9.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Edward Erwin (2001). Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (3):730-732.score: 9.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Frank Cioffi (1999). Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Open Court.score: 9.0
    For three decades Frank Cioffi has been at the center of the debate over Freud's legacy and the legitimacy of psychoanalysis.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Wendy M. Grossman (2013). Lies, Damned Lies, and Pseudoscience. The Philosophers' Magazine 63:26-27.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. G. D. Catalano (1990). Animals in the Research Laboratory: Science or Pseudoscience? Between the Species: A Journal of Ethics 6 (1):17.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. J. W. Grove (1985). Rationality at Risk: Science Against Pseudoscience. Minerva 23 (2):216-240.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Setargew Kenaw (2010). Psychoanalyzing Historicists?: The Enigmatic Popper. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 41 (2):315 - 332.score: 9.0
    The paper shows how Karl Popper's critique of 'historicism' is permeated by psychoanalytic discourse regardless of his critique that psychoanalysis is one of the exemplars of pseudoscience. Early on, when he was formulating his philosophy of science, Popper had an apparently stringent criterion, viz. falsifiablity, and painstaking analysis. The central argument of this paper is that despite his representation of psychoanalysis as the principal illustration of the category he dubs as 'pseudoscience', Popper's analysis has been infused with psychoanalysis (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Anton E. Lawson (2004). A Reply to Allchin's “Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience”. Science and Education 13 (6):599-605.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Andrew Lugg (1987). Bunkum, Flim‐Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica 41 (3):221-230.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. David Seedhouse (1996). Editorial: Measuring Health: An Exercise in Social Pseudoscience and Political Naivety. Health Care Analysis 4 (4):261-264.score: 9.0
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Douglas Allchin (2004). Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience. Science and Education 13 (3):179-195.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Leslie Burkholder (2001). Fred Wilson, The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience Reviewed By. Philosophy in Review 21 (4):300-302.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. M. Curd & J. A. Cover (1998). Science and Pseudoscience: Introduction. In Martin Curd & Jan Cover (eds.), Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. Norton. 1--2.score: 9.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Peter A. Daempfle (2012). Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.score: 9.0
    Filled with provocative real-life examples from coffee to cancer, the book helps readers build their tools of scientific literacy.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Lz Fang (1988). The Controversy Between Science and Pseudoscience Over Modern Cosmology. Chinese Studies in Philosophy 19 (4):14-26.score: 9.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Robert E. Gropp (2003). Evolution Activists Organize to Combat Pseudoscience in Public Schools. Bioscience 53 (8):700.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. David R. Hershey (2006). Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience: Corrections to Allchin's Historical, Conceptual and Educational Claims. Science and Education 15 (1):121-125.score: 9.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Milan M. Ćirković (2006). Misuse of the Anthropic Principle: Quasireligious Pseudoscience Caught in Act. Theoria 49 (1-2):21-35.score: 9.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. H. Leslie (2000). Frank Cioffi, Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Philosophical Investigations 23 (2):187-190.score: 9.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Sherrie Lyons (1998). Science or Pseudoscience: Phrenology as a Cautionary Tale for Evolutionary Psychology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41 (4):491-503.score: 9.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 120