Linked bibliography for the SEP article "Science and Pseudo-Science" by Sven Ove Hansson

This is an automatically generated and experimental page

If everything goes well, this page should display the bibliography of the aforementioned article as it appears in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but with links added to PhilPapers records and Google Scholar for your convenience. Some bibliographies are not going to be represented correctly or fully up to date. In general, bibliographies of recent works are going to be much better linked than bibliographies of primary literature and older works. Entries with PhilPapers records have links on their titles. A green link indicates that the item is available online at least partially.

This experiment has been authorized by the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The original article and bibliography can be found here.

Cited Works

  • Agassi, Joseph, 1991. “Popper’s demarcation of science refuted”, Methodology and Science, 24: 1–7. (Scholar)
  • Baigrie, B.S., 1988. “Siegel on the Rationality of Science”, Philosophy of Science, 55: 435–441. (Scholar)
  • Bartley III, W. W., 1968. “Theories of demarcation between science and metaphysics”, pp. 40–64 in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science, Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London 1965, volume 3, Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company. (Scholar)
  • Boudry, Maarten, Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman, 2010. “How not to attack intelligent design creationism: Philosophical misconceptions about methodological naturalism.” Foundations of Science, 153: 227–244. (Scholar)
  • Boykoff, M. T., 2008. “Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004”, Climatic Change, 86: 1–11. (Scholar)
  • Boykoff, M. T. and J. M. Boykoff, 2004. “Balance as bias: global warming and the U.S. prestige press”, Global Environmental Change, 14: 125–136. (Scholar)
  • Bunge, Mario, 1982. “Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience”, Fundamenta Scientiae, 3: 369–388. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2001. “Diagnosing pseudoscience”, in Mario Bunge, Philosophy in Crisis. The Need for Reconstruction, Amherst, N.Y.; Prometheus Books, pp. 161–189. (Scholar)
  • Carlson, Shawn, 1985. “A Double Blind Test of Astrology”, Nature, 318: 419–425. (Scholar)
  • Cioffi, Frank, 1985. “Psychoanalysis, pseudoscience and testability”, pp 13–44 in Gregory Currie and Alan Musgrave, (eds.) Popper and the Human Sciences, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht. (Scholar)
  • Culver, Roger and Ianna, Philip, 1988. Astrology: True or False. 1988, Buffalo: Prometheus Books. (Scholar)
  • Derksen, A.A., 1993. “The seven sins of pseudoscience”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24: 17–42. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2001. “The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudoscience: a look into Freud’s rhetorical tool box”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32: 329–350. (Scholar)
  • Dolby, R.G.A., 1987. “Science and pseudoscience: the case of creationism”, Zygon, 22: 195–212. (Scholar)
  • Dunlap, Riley E., and Peter J. Jacques, 2013. “Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: exploring the connection”, American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6): 699–731. (Scholar)
  • Dupré, John, 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science, Harvard: Harvard University Press. (Scholar)
  • Dutch, Steven I, 1982. “Notes on the nature of fringe science”, Journal of Geological Education, 30: 6–13. (Scholar)
  • Feleppa, Robert, 1990. “Kuhn, Popper, and the Normative Problem of Demarcation”, pp. 140–155 in Patrick Grim (ed.) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd ed, Albany: State University of New York Press. (Scholar)
  • Fuller, Steve, 1985. “The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly exaggerated”, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 66: 329–341. (Scholar)
  • Gardner, Martin, 1957. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, Dover 1957. (Expanded version of his In the Name of Science, 1952.) (Scholar)
  • Gleberzon, William, 1983. “Academic freedom and Holocaust denial literature: Dealing with infamy”, Interchange, 14(4): 62–69. (Scholar)
  • Glymour, Clark and Stalker, Douglas, 1990. “Winning through Pseudoscience”, pp 92–103 in Patrick Grim (ed.) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd ed, Albany: State University of New York Press. (Scholar)
  • Grove , J.W., 1985. “Rationality at Risk: Science against Pseudoscience”, Minerva, 23: 216–240. (Scholar)
  • Gruenberger, Fred J., 1964. “A measure for crackpots”, Science, 145: 1413–1415.
  • Hansson, Sven Ove, 1983. Vetenskap och ovetenskap, Stockholm: Tiden. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1996. “Defining Pseudoscience”, Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–176. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2006. “Falsificationism Falsified”, Foundations of Science, 11: 275–286. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2007. “Values in Pure and Applied Science”, Foundations of Science, 12: 257–268. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2011. “Philosophy in the Defence of Science”, Theoria, 77(1): 101–103. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2013. “Defining pseudoscience and science”, pp. 61–77 in Pigliucci and Boudry (eds.) 2013. (Scholar)
  • Kitcher, Philip, 1982. Abusing Science. The Case Against Creationism, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Scholar) (Scholar)
  • Krystal, Arthur, 1999. “At Large and at Small: What Do You Know?”, American Scholar, 68(2): 7–13. (Scholar)
  • Kuhn, Thomas S., 1974. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?”, pp. 798–819 in P.A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Karl Popper, The Library of Living Philosophers, vol xiv, book ii. La Salle: Open Court. (Scholar)
  • Lakatos, Imre, 1970. “Falsification and the Methodology of Research program”, pp 91–197 in Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1974a. “Popper on Demarcation and Induction”, pp. 241–273 in P.A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Karl Popper, The Library of Living Philosophers, vol xiv, book i. La Salle: Open Court. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1974b. “Science and pseudoscience”, Conceptus, 8: 5–9. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1981. “Science and pseudoscience”, pp. 114–121 in S Brown et al. (eds.) Conceptions of Inquiry: A Reader London: Methuen. (Scholar)
  • Langmuir, Irving, [1953] 1989. “Pathological Science”, Physics Today, 42/10: 36–48.
  • Laudan, Larry, 1983. “The demise of the demarcation problem”, pp. 111–127 in R.S. Cohan and L. Laudan (eds.), Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis, Dordrecht: Reidel. (Scholar)
  • Lugg, Andrew, 1987. “Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical ProblemDialectica, 41: 221–230. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1992. “Pseudoscience as nonsense”, Methodology and Science, 25: 91–101. (Scholar)
  • Mahner, Martin, 2007. “Demarcating Science from Non-Science”, pp 515-575 in Theo Kuipers (ed.) Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: General Philosophy of Science – Focal Issues, Amsterdam: Elsevier. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2013. “Science and pseudoscience. How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of the demarcation problem”, pp. 29–43 in Pigliucci and Boudry (eds.) 2013. (Scholar)
  • Mayo, Deborah G., 1996. “Ducks, rabbits and normal science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-eye view of Popper’s demarcation of science”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47: 271–290. (Scholar)
  • Merton, Robert K., [1942] 1973. “Science and Technology in a Democratic Order”, Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, 1: 115–126, 1942. Reprinted as “The Normative Structure of Science”, pp. 267–278 in Robert K Merton, The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Morris, Robert L., 1987. “Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem”, Inquiry, 30: 241–251. (Scholar)
  • Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway, 2010. Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming, New York: Bloomsbury Press. (Scholar)
  • Pigliucci, Massimo, 2013. “The demarcation problem. A (belated) response to Laudan”, in Pigliucci and Boudry (eds.) 2013, pp. 9–28. (Scholar)
  • Pigliucci, Massimo and Maarten Boudry (eds.), 2013. Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press. (Scholar)
  • Popper, Karl, 1962. Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge, New York: Basic Books. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1974 “Reply to my critics”, in P.A. Schilpp, The Philosophy of Karl Popper (The Library of Living Philosophers, Volume XIV, Book 2), La Salle: Open Court, pp. 961–1197. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1976. Unended Quest London: Fontana. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1978. “Natural Selection and the Emergence of the Mind”, Dialectica, 32: 339–355. (Scholar)
  • –––, [1989] 1994. “Falsifizierbarkeit, zwei Bedeutungen von”, pp. 82–86 in Helmut Seiffert and Gerard Radnitzky, Handlexikon zur Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edition München:Ehrenwirth GmbH Verlag.
  • Radner, Daisie and Michael Radner, 1982. Science and Unreason, Belmont CA: Wadsworth. (Scholar)
  • Reisch, George A., 1998. “Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of Pseudoscience”, Philosophy of Science, 65: 333–348. (Scholar)
  • Rothbart, Daniel, 1990 “Demarcating Genuine Science from Pseudoscience”, pp 111–122 in Patrick Grim, ed, Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd ed, Albany: State University of New York Press. (Scholar)
  • Ruse, Michael, 1977. “Karl Popper’s Philosophy of Biology”, Philosophy of Science, 44: 638–661. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2000. “Is evolutionary biology a different kind of science?”, Aquinas, 43: 251–282. (Scholar)
  • Ruse, Michael (ed.), (1996). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books. (Scholar)
  • Settle, Tom, 1971. “The Rationality of Science versus the Rationality of Magic”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 1: 173–194. (Scholar)
  • Siitonen, Arto, 1984. “Demarcation of science from the point of view of problems and problem-stating”, Philosophia Naturalis, 21: 339–353. (Scholar)
  • Thagard, Paul R., 1978. “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience”, Philosophy of Science Association (PSA 1978), 1: 223–234. (Scholar)
  • –––, 1988. Computational Philosophy of Science, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Scholar)
  • Thurs, Daniel P. and Ronald L. Numbers, 2013. “Science, pseudoscience and science falsely so-called”, pp. 121–144 in Pigliucci and Boudry (eds.) 2013. (Scholar)
  • Vollmer, Gerhard, 1993. Wissenschaftstheorie im Einsatz, Beiträge zu einer selbstkritischen Wissenschaftsphilosophie Stuttgart: Hirzel Verlag. (Scholar)
  • Wazeck, Milena, 2009. Einsteins Gegner. Die öffentliche Kontroverse um die Relativitätstheorie in den 1920er Jahren. Frankfurt: campus. (Scholar)
  • Williams, Nigel, 2005. “Heavyweight attack on climate-change denial”, Current Biology, 15(4): R109–R110. (Scholar)

Philosophically-informed Literature on Pseudosciences and Contested Doctrines



  • James, Edward W, 1990. “On Dismissing Astrology and Other Irrationalities”, pp. 28–36 in Patrick Grim (ed.) Philosophy of Science and the Occult, 2nd ed, State University of New York Press, Albany. (Scholar)
  • Kanitscheider, Bernulf, 1991. “A Philosopher Looks at Astrology”, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 16: 258–266,. (Scholar)

Climate science denialism




  • Cioffi, Frank, 1998. Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Chigago: Open Court. (Scholar)
  • –––, 2013. “Pseudoscience. The case of Freud’s sexual etiology of the neuroses”, pp. 321–340 in Pigliucci and Boudry (eds.) 2013. (Scholar)
  • Grünbaum, Adolf, 1979. “Is Freudian psychoanalytic theory pseudoscientific by Karl Popper’s criterion of demarcation?”, American Philosophical Quarterly, 16: 131–141. (Scholar)

Quackery and non–scientific medicine


Generated Mon Sep 18 19:29:08 2017