- New
-
Topics
- All Categories
- Metaphysics and Epistemology
- Value Theory
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Science, Logic, and Mathematics
- Logic and Philosophy of Logic
- Philosophy of Biology
- Philosophy of Cognitive Science
- Philosophy of Computing and Information
- Philosophy of Mathematics
- Philosophy of Physical Science
- Philosophy of Social Science
- Philosophy of Probability
- General Philosophy of Science
- Philosophy of Science, Misc
- History of Western Philosophy
- Philosophical Traditions
- Philosophy, Misc
- Other Academic Areas
- Journals
- Submit material
- More
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk
University of Chicago Press (2010)
Abstract
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 : do we trust science too much? -- The science wars II : do we trust science too little? -- Who's your expert? -- Conclusion : so, what is science after all?Other Versions
No versions found
Links
PhilArchive
External links
(no proxy)
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Through your library
- Sign in / register and customize your OpenURL resolver
- Configure custom resolver
My notes
Similar books and articles
Massimo Pigliucci: Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk.Ron Good - 2012 - Science & Education 21 (3):435-440.
Exploring the hinterland of science: Massimo Pigliucci: Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2010, 332pp, $20.00 PB.Maarten Boudry - 2010 - Metascience 20 (1):173-176.
Review of Massimo Pigliucci, Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk. [REVIEW]Barry Barnes - 2010 - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews 2010 (7).
Reviews. [REVIEW]Henry H. Bauer, Carlos S. Alvarado, Bryan J. Williams, Constantin Cranganu, Hannah Jenkins, Michael Davidson, Mark Rodeghier, Karl P. N. Shuker, Michael Nahm, Wellington Zangari, Fatima Regina Machado & Patric Giesler - 2011 - Journal of Scientific Exploration 25 (2).
Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem.Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.) - 2013 - University of Chicago Press.
Pseudoscience Charges and the Demarcation Problem.Moreno Paulon - 2023 - Acta Baltica Historiae Et Philosophiae Scientiarum 11 (2):3-31.
Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem.Massimo Pigliucci - 2023 - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience, and Just Plain Bunk: How to Tell the Difference.Peter A. Daempfle - 2012 - Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
The Social Psychology of “Pseudoscience”: A Brief History.Arthur Still & Windy Dryden - 2004 - Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 34 (3):265-290.
Analytics
Added to PP
2010-09-01
Downloads
203 (#112,426)
6 months
18 (#141,886)
2010-09-01
Downloads
203 (#112,426)
6 months
18 (#141,886)
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Person as scientist, person as moralist.Joshua Knobe - 2010 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 33 (4):315.
The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse.Lawrence Torcello - 2016 - Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (1):19-48.
How convenient! The epistemic rationale of self-validating belief systems.Maarten Boudry & Johan Braeckman - 2012 - Philosophical Psychology 25 (3):341-364.
PhilPapers logo by Andrea Andrews and Meghan Driscoll.
This site uses cookies and Google Analytics (see our terms & conditions for details regarding the privacy implications). Use of this site is subject to terms & conditions.
All rights reserved by The PhilPapers Foundation
Server: philpapers-web-5d8df9484f-2n7kc uwo