The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience
Logique Et Analyse 223:245-258 (2013)
Abstract
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.Author's Profile
My notes
Similar books and articles
Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms.Maarten Boudry & Johan Braeckman - 2011 - Philosophia 39 (1):145-161.
The philosophy behind pseudoscience.Behind Pseudoscience - 2009 - In Kendrick Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus. pp. 235.
Is Sociobiology a Pseudoscience?R. Paul Thompson - 1980 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1980:363 - 370.
Do extraordinary claims really require extraordinary evidence?Massimo Pigliucci - 2009 - In K. Frazier (ed.), Science Under Siege: Defending Science, Exposing Pseudoscience. Prometheus.
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.
Navigating the Landscape between Science and Religious Pseudoscience.Barbara Forrest - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 263.
Science and Pseudoscience How to Demarcate after the (Alleged) Demise.Martin Mahner - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 29.
Prove it! The Burden of Proof Game in Science vs. Pseudoscience Disputes.Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (2):487-502.
Argumentation and Pseudoscience The Case for an Ethics ofArgumentation.Jean Paul van Bendegem - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press.
Why the Demarcation Problem Matters.Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem.
Pseudoscience.Massimo Pigliucci - 2013 - In Byron Kaldis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. SAGE.
Science and Pseudoscience The Difference in Practice and the Difference/t Makes.Michael Shermer - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 203.
Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Falsely So-CaIIed.Daniel P. Thurs & Ronald L. Numbers - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 121.
Analytics
Added to PP
2013-12-01
Downloads
2,161 (#2,313)
6 months
229 (#2,202)
2013-12-01
Downloads
2,161 (#2,313)
6 months
229 (#2,202)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
The epistemic benefits of religious disagreement.Katherine Dormandy - 2020 - Religious Studies 56 (3):390-408.
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.
Why We Should Be Suspicious of Conspiracy Theories: A Novel Demarcation Problem.Maarten Boudry - 2021 - Episteme:1-21.
References found in this work
Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.) - 1970 - Cambridge University Press.
Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth.Larry Laudan - 1977 - University of California Press.
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.Karl Raimund Popper - 1962 - London, England: Routledge.
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.Karl Raimund Popper - 1962 - London, England: Routledge.
Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.Mary Hesse - 1965 - Philosophical Quarterly 15 (61):372-374.