The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience

Logique Et Analyse 223:245-258 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX


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, and calls attention to the way in which the context of a theoretical move bears on the charge of adhocness. We also discuss the role of motivations implicit in the concept of adhocness, and the way ad hoc moves draw on theory-internal rationalizations.



External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Is Sociobiology a Pseudoscience?R. Paul Thompson - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:363 - 370.
Paranormalism and Pseudoscience.Erich Goode - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 145.


Added to PP

2,161 (#2,313)

6 months
229 (#2,202)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Maarten Boudry
University of Ghent

Citations of this work

Systematizing the theoretical virtues.Michael Keas - 2018 - Synthese 195 (6):2761-2793.
Diagnosing Pseudoscience – by Getting Rid of the Demarcation Problem.Maarten Boudry - 2022 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 53 (2):83-101.

View all 6 citations / Add more citations