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

Logique Et Analyse 223:245-258 (2013)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BOUTHT
Upload history
Archival date: 2016-03-09
View other versions
Added to PP index
2013-12-01

Total views
1,596 ( #2,416 of 2,449,197 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
160 ( #3,239 of 2,449,197 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.