Imre Lakatos; II—Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 69, Issue 1, 1 June 1969, Page.

Using astrology as a case study, this paper attempts to establish a criterion for demarcating science from pseudoscience. Numerous reasons for considering astrology to be a pseudoscience are evaluated and rejected; verifiability and falsifiability are briefly discussed. A theory is said to be pseudoscientific if and only if (1) it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems, but (2) the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory (...) towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations. This criterion has the interesting consequence that a theory can be scientific at one time but pseudoscientific at another. (shrink)

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 (...) used to explain why proponents of widely divergent criteria for the demarcation between science and pseudoscience tend to be in almost complete agreement on the particular demarcations that should presumably be based on these general criteria. (shrink)

Ever since Socrates, philosophers have been in the business of asking ques- tions of the type “What is X?” The point has not always been to actually find out what X is, but rather to explore how we think about X, to bring up to the surface wrong ways of thinking about it, and hopefully in the process to achieve an increasingly better understanding of the matter at hand. In the early part of the twentieth century one of the most (...) ambitious philosophers of sci- ence, Karl Popper, asked that very question in the specific case in which X = science. Popper termed this the “demarcation problem,” the quest for what distinguishes science from nonscience and pseudoscience (and, presumably, also the latter two from each other). (shrink)

Studie pojednává o analýze a navrhovaném řešení problému „hodnotové neutrality" vědy německým kritickým racionalistou Hansem Albertem. Především Albert odmítá dvě vyhrocené pozice: novopozitivistickou ignoraci hodnotících soudů i jejich existencialistickou adoraci. Naopak se prostřednictvím takzvaných přemosťovacích principů snaží překlenout propast mezi poznáním na jedné straně a rozhodnutím na straně druhé. V návaznosti na Maxe Webera uznává princip hodnotové neutrality ve vědě, ovšem pouze v oblasti jejího objektového jazyka, neboť věda jako technologický systém výpovědí má pouze informativní, nikoli normativní charakter. To však (...) nevylučuje hodnocení v rovině předmětů věd a v rovině hodnotové báze věd. Dále se tato studie věnuje otázce hodnoty vědy o sobě a nakonec krátkému seznámení s Albertovým pojetím kritického racionalismu jako návrhu „způsobu života". (shrink)