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

151 found
Order:
See also:
  1. Behind Pseudoscience (2009). The Philosophy Behind Pseudoscience. In Kendrick Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus 235.
  2. Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke & Massimo Pigliucci (2014). What Makes Weird Beliefs Thrive? The Epidemiology of Pseudoscience. Philosophical Psychology 28 (8):1177-1198.
    What makes beliefs thrive? In this paper, we model the dissemination of bona fide science versus pseudoscience, making use of Dan Sperber's epidemiological model of representations. Drawing on cognitive research on the roots of irrational beliefs and the institutional arrangement of science, we explain the dissemination of beliefs in terms of their salience to human cognition and their ability to adapt to specific cultural ecologies. By contrasting the cultural development of science and pseudoscience along a number of dimensions, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (2013). Prove It! The Burden of Proof Game in Science Vs. Pseudoscience Disputes. Philosophia 42 (2):487-502.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. 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.
    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 (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5.  49
    Massimo Pigliucci (2015). Scientism and Pseudoscience: A Philosophical Commentary. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 12 (4):569-575.
    The term “scientism” is used in a variety of ways with both negative and positive connotations. I suggest that some of these uses are inappropriate, as they aim simply at dismissing without argument an approach that a particular author does not like. However, there are legitimate negative uses of the term, which I explore by way of an analogy with the term “pseudoscience.” I discuss these issues by way of a recent specific example provided by a controversy in the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  6. Massimo Pigliucci (2013). Pseudoscience. In Byron Kaldis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. SAGE
    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  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7.  11
    Jianhui Li & Zheng Fu (2015). The Craziness for Extra‐Sensory Perception: Qigong Fever and the Science–Pseudoscience Debate in China. Zygon 50 (2):534-547.
    From 1979 to 1999, a heated dispute over the science or pseudoscience of extraordinary power or extrasensory perception took place in China. During these two decades, many so-called “grandmasters” of ESP and Qigong emerged, and millions of people across the country studied with them; this was known as “Qigong Fever” or “ESP Fever.” The supporters of ESP argued that ESP existed, people could cultivate ESP through specific Qigong training, and ESP was a science; whereas the opponents of ESP denied (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  8.  40
    Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.) (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.
    What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? In this volume, the contributors seek to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to ponder. However, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  9.  11
    Michael D. Gordin (2012). How Lysenkoism Became Pseudoscience: Dobzhansky to Velikovsky. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 45 (3):443 - 468.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  10.  72
    Maarten Boudry (2013). The Hypothesis That Saves the Day: Ad Hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience. Logique Et Analyse 223:245-258.
    What is wrong with ad hoc hypotheses? Ever since Popper’s falsificationist account of adhocness, there has been a lively philosophical discussion about what constitutes adhocness in scientific explanation, and what, if anything, distinguishes legitimate auxiliary hypotheses from illicit ad hoc ones. This paper draws upon distinct examples from pseudoscience to provide us with a clearer view as to what is troubling about ad hoc hypotheses. In contrast with other philosophical proposals, our approach retains the colloquial, derogative meaning of adhocness, (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11.  37
    Andrew Lugg (1995). Pseudoscience as Structurally Flawed Practice: A Reply to A.A. Derksen. [REVIEW] Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 26 (2):323 - 326.
    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 (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12.  79
    Maarten Boudry & Filip Buekens (2011). The Epistemic Predicament of a Pseudoscience: Social Constructivism Confronts Freudian Psychoanalysis. Theoria 77 (2):159-179.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  13.  18
    Tomislav Bracanović (2012). From Integrative Bioethics to Pseudoscience. Developing World Bioethics 12 (3):148-156.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. Paul R. Thagard (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:223 - 234.
    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 (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   6 citations  
  15.  13
    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.
  16.  2
    Peter A. Daempfle (2012). Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk teaches readers to think like scientists—to critically evaluate the truth of scientific claims. Filled with provocative real-life examples, from the effects of Bisphenol-A to examining some of the alleged causes of cancer, the book helps readers build their tools of scientific literacy.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  17.  48
    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.
  18.  6
    Babette Babich (2015). Calling Science Pseudoscience: Fleck's Archaeologies of Fact and Latour's ‘Biography of an Investigation’ in AIDS Denialism and Homeopathy. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29 (1):1-39.
    Fleck's Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact foregrounds claims traditionally excluded from reception, often regarded as opposed to fact, scientific claims that are increasingly seldom discussed in connection with philosophy of science save as examples of pseudoscience. I am especially concerned with scientists who question the epidemiological link between HIV and AIDS and who are thereby discounted—no matter their credentials, no matter the cogency of their arguments, no matter the sobriety of their statistics—but also with other classic examples (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19.  3
    Arthur Still & Windy Dryden (2004). The Social Psychology of “Pseudoscience”: A Brief History. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (3):265-290.
    The word ‘pseudoscience’ is a marker of changing worries about science and being a scientist. It played an important role in the philosophical debate on demarcating science from other activities, and was used in popular writings to distance science from cranky theories with scientific pretensions. These uses consolidated a comforting unity in science, a communal space from which pseudoscience is excluded, and the user's right to belong is asserted. The urgency of this process dwindled when attempts to find (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  20.  9
    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.
  21.  4
    Robert Nola (2015). The Fuzziness of Pseudoscience. Metascience 24 (2):279-284.
    This is a collection of 23 papers plus an Introduction in a book which revives an old issue that some have declared to be long dead, viz., whether there is any way of demarcating science from other endeavors, but most importantly pseudoscience. This is a timely book that is well worth consulting since it breathes life back into an important problem. There is something in it for all, as the six parts into which it is divided indicate: “What’s the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22.  7
    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.
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  23.  7
    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
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24.  11
    R. Paul Thompson (1980). Is Sociobiology a Pseudoscience? PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:363 - 370.
    Among the numerous criticisms of sociobiology is the criticism that it is not genuine science. This paper defends sociobiology against this criticism. There are three aspects to the defense. First, it is argued that the testability criterion of pseudoscience is generally problematic as a criterion and that even if accepted it fails to mark sociobiology as a pseudoscience. Second, it is argued that Thagard's more comprehensive and sophisticated criterion of pseudoscience fails to mark sociobiology as a (...). Third, a positive case for accepting sociobiology as genuine science is presented. (shrink)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25.  4
    Ii—Iarry Frankfurt (2013). From Pseudoscience. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press 45.
  26.  3
    Erich Goode (2013). Paranormalism and Pseudoscience. In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press 145.
  27.  1
    Lz Fang (1988). The Controversy Between Science and Pseudoscience Over Modern Cosmology. Chinese Studies in Philosophy 19 (4):14-26.
    Between the spring and summer of 1973, the "Gang of Four" began to interfere publicly with the field of astrophysics, launching a critique of modern cosmology under the lead of the Magazine of Natural Dialectics, which they directly controlled. All of modern astrophysical cosmology was proclaimed to be a "new theology," and those studying cosmological models were denounced for "letting their intellects run wild." An endless litany of transgressions was attributed to Big-Bang cosmology in various "criticisms" and "recriticisms."1 Pseudoscience (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28. Peter A. Daempfle (2014). Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
    Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk teaches readers to think like scientists—to critically evaluate the truth of scientific claims. Filled with provocative real-life examples, from the effects of Bisphenol-A to examining some of the alleged causes of cancer, the book helps readers build their tools of scientific literacy.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29. Avshalom Elitzur (1991). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence. [REVIEW] Journal of Mind and Behavior 12 (1):171-174.
    The first reaction with which one is likely to greet such a book is "at last!" Psychology, is an inevitable side-product of its modern success, has become a major contributor to the growing pseudoscience literature. A careful examination of this nonesense industry, and of the motives behind it, is an undertaking worthy of a university psychologist. Terence Hines, known to readers of this journal from a lively debate following his harsh criticism of a sloppy psychology book , has now (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Michael D. Gordin (2013). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. University of Chicago Press.
    Properly analyzed, the collective mythological and religious writings of humanity reveal that around 1500 BC, a comet swept perilously close to Earth, triggering widespread natural disasters and threatening the destruction of all life before settling into solar orbit as Venus, our nearest planetary neighbor. Sound implausible? Well, from 1950 until the late 1970s, a huge number of people begged to differ, as they devoured Immanuel Velikovsky’s major best-seller, Worlds in Collision, insisting that perhaps this polymathic thinker held the key to (...)
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.) (2013). The Philosophy of Pseudoscience. University of Chicago Press.
    What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? In this volume, the contributors seek to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to ponder. However, the essays (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32.  22
    Frank Cioffi (1999). Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Open Court.
    For three decades Frank Cioffi has been at the center of the debate over Freud's legacy and the legitimacy of psychoanalysis.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  33.  51
    Milan M. Ćirković (2006). Misuse of the Anthropic Principle: Quasireligious Pseudoscience Caught in Act. Theoria 49 (1-2):21-35.
  34.  97
    George A. Reisch (1998). Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of Pseudoscience. Philosophy of Science 65 (2):333-348.
    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 (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  35.  11
    J. W. Grove (1985). Rationality at Risk: Science Against Pseudoscience. Minerva 23 (2):216-240.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  36.  13
    Douglas Allchin (2004). Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience. Science and Education 13 (3):179-195.
  37.  57
    James E. Alcock (1998). Science, Pseudoscience, and Anomaly. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):303-303.
    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)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  38.  4
    George D. Catalano, Animals in the Research Laboratory: Science or Pseudoscience?
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  39.  54
    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.
  40.  7
    Michael Martin (1994). Pseudoscience, the Paranormal, and Science Education. Science and Education 3 (4):357-371.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41.  11
    David R. Hershey (2006). Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience: Corrections to Allchin's Historical, Conceptual and Educational Claims. Science and Education 15 (1):121-125.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  35
    Victor J. Stenger, ESP and Cold Fusion Parallels in Pseudoscience.
    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
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43.  11
    Anton E. Lawson (2004). A Reply to Allchin's “Pseudohistory and Pseudoscience”. Science and Education 13 (6):599-605.
  44.  2
    David Seedhouse (1996). Editorial: Measuring Health: An Exercise in Social Pseudoscience and Political Naivety. Health Care Analysis 4 (4):261-264.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  45.  19
    Edward Erwin (2001). Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (3):730-732.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  46.  5
    Andrew Lugg (1987). Bunkum, Flim‐Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica 41 (3):221-230.
    SummaryIn the first half of the paper, it is argued that while the prospects for a criterion for demarcating scientific theories from pseudoscientific ones are exceedingly dim, it is a mistake to fall back to the position that these differ only with regard to how well they are confirmed. One may admit that different pseudoscientific theories are flawed in different ways yet still insist that their flaws are structural rather than empirical in character. In the second half of the paper, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  47.  8
    Wendy M. Grossman (2013). Lies, Damned Lies, and Pseudoscience. The Philosophers' Magazine 63:26-27.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  3
    Sherrie Lyons (1998). Science or Pseudoscience: Phrenology as a Cautionary Tale for Evolutionary Psychology. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41 (4):491-503.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  23
    Arthurstill & Windydryden (2004). The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (3):265–290.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. 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.
1 — 50 / 151