Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Scientificity and The Law of Theory Demarcation.Ameer Sarwar & Patrick Fraser - 2018 - Scientonomy: Journal for the Science of Science 2:55-66.
    The demarcation between science and non-science seems to play an important role in the process of scientific change, as theories regularly transition from being considered scientific to being considered unscientific and vice versa. However, theoretical scientonomy is yet to shed light on this process. The goal of this paper is to tackle the problem of demarcation from the scientonomic perspective. Specifically, we introduce scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that an agent can take towards a theory. We contend that changes (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Filosofie vědy a problém demarkace. [REVIEW]Pavel Kasík - 2014 - Teorie Vědy / Theory of Science 36 (4):457-468.
    Recenze: Massimo PIGLIUCCI - Maarten BOUDRY, Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: Chicago University Press 2013, 480 s.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation.Sven Ove Hansson - 2009 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):237-243.
    A definition of pseudoscience is proposed, according to which a statement is pseudoscientific if and only if it (1) pertains to an issue within the domains of science, (2) is not epistemically warranted, and (3) is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression that it is epistemically warranted. This approach has the advantage of separating the definition of pseudoscience from the justification of the claim that science represents the most epistemically warranted statements. The definition is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   27 citations  
  • Rationality and anemia (response to baigrie).Harvey Siegel - 1988 - Philosophy of Science 55 (3):442-447.
    In his (1988), Brian Baigrie criticizes my earlier discussion of the rationality of science (Siegel 1985). In this response, I argue that (1) Baigrie misses the point of my tripartite distinction between different questions one can ask about science's rationality, (2) Baigrie's argument that the history of the development of methodological principles is crucial to philosophical discussion of the rationality of science is flawed, and (3) Baigrie's charge that my view is "anemic" rests on a failure to appreciate the point (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations