I take pseudoscience to be a pretence at science. Pretences are innumerable, limited only by our imagination and credulity. As Stove points out, ‘numerology is actually quite as different from astrology as astrology is from astronomy’ (Stove 1991, 187). We are sure that ‘something has gone appallingly wrong’ (Stove 1991, 180) and yet ‘thoughts…can go wrong in a multiplicity of ways, none of which anyone yet understands’ (Stove 1991, 190). Often all we can do is give a careful description (...) of a way of pretending, a motivation for pretence, a source of pretension. In this chapter I attempt the latter. We will be concerned with the relation of conviction to rational belief. I shall be suggesting that the question of whether an enquiry is a pretence at science can be, in part, a question over the role of conviction in rational belief, and that the answer is to be found in the philosophical problem of the role of values in rational belief. (shrink)

In this article I give a unified account of three phenomena: bullshit, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. My aims are partly conceptual, partly evaluative. Drawing on Harry Frankfurt's seminal analysis of bullshit, I give an account of the three phenomena and of how they are related, and I use this account to explain what is bad about all three. More specifically, I argue that what is defective about pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy is precisely that they are special cases of bullshit. Apart (...) from raising interesting philosophical issues, gaining a clearer understanding of these phenomena is also of practical importance, in that it bears on how best to tackle the threat that they pose. (shrink)

The term pseudoscience refers to a highly heterogeneous set of practices, beliefs, and claims sharing the property of appearing to be scientific when in fact they contradict either scientific findings or the methods by which science proceeds. Classic examples of pseudoscience include astrology, parapsychology, and ufology; more recent entries are the denial of a causal link between the HIV virus and AIDS or the claim that vaccines cause autism. To distinguish between science and pseudoscience is part of (...) what the philosopher Karl Popper referred to as the demarcation problem, a project that has been dismissed by another philosopher, Larry Laudan, but that keeps gathering much interest in philosophers, scientists, educators, and policymakers. This entry provides the basics of the debate about demarcation, as well as a brief discussion of why it is of vital importance not just intellectually but for society at large. (shrink)

Historically, secular humanism has been in conflict with religious thought in the academic and social spheres. This article supports the thesis that in modern times pseu-dosciences and pseudoscientific thinking are a threat to the humanist project, comparable to religious fundamen-talism. To prove it, the concept of Secular Humanism and how it is threatened by religious fundamentalism is explai-ned. This is followed by the definition of what pseudos-ciences are and what pseudoscientific thinking is. Subse-quently, the way how pseudosciences threaten the secular (...) humanist project is described. The conclusion states that pseudoscientific thought and religious fundamentalism are equally dangerous for social coexistence. (shrink)

La délimitation entre science et pseudoscience fait partie de la tâche plus générale qui consiste à déterminer quelles croyances sont épistémologiquement justifiées. Karl Popper a proposé la falsifiabilité comme critère important de distinction entre science et pseudoscience. Il soutient que la vérification et la confirmation ne peuvent jouer aucun rôle dans la formulation d'un critère de délimitation satisfaisant. Au lieu de cela, il propose que les théories scientifiques soient distinguées des théories non-scientifiques par des affirmations vérifiables que les (...) observations futures pourraient se révéler fausses. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24472.14084. (shrink)

I insightfully discuss the question: what is pseudoscience?

What makes beliefs thrive? In this paper, we model the dissemination of bona fide science versus pseudoscience, making use of Dan Sperber's epidemiological model of representations. Drawing on cognitive research on the roots of irrational beliefs and the institutional arrangement of science, we explain the dissemination of beliefs in terms of their salience to human cognition and their ability to adapt to specific cultural ecologies. By contrasting the cultural development of science and pseudoscience along a number of dimensions, (...) we gain a better understanding of their underlying epistemic differences. Pseudoscience can achieve widespread acceptance by tapping into evolved cognitive mechanisms, thus sacrificing intellectual integrity for intuitive appeal. Science, by contrast, defies those deeply held intuitions precisely because it is institutionally arranged to track objective patterns in the world, and the world does not care much about our intuitions. In light of these differences, we discuss the degree of openness or resilience to conceptual change (evidence and reason), and the divergent ways in which science and pseudoscience can achieve cultural “success”. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

In the first half of the paper, it is argued that while the prospects for a criterion for demarcating scientific theories from pseudoscientific ones are exceedingly dim, it is a mistake to fall back to the position that these differ only with regard to how well they are confirmed. One may admit that different pseudoscientific theories are flawed in different ways yet still insist that their flaws are structural rather than empirical in character. In the second half of the paper, (...) this view is extended to cover the cases of pseudoscientific correlations and therapies, and it is suggested that the pseudosciences are best thought of as radically flawed practices. (shrink)

The delimitation between science and pseudoscience is part of the more general task of determining which beliefs are epistemologically justified. Standards for demarcation may vary by domain, but several basic principles are universally accepted. Karl Popper proposed falsifiability as an important criterion in distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. He argues that verification and confirmation can play no role in formulating a satisfactory criterion of demarcation. Instead, it proposes that scientific theories be distinguished from non-scientific theories by testable claims (...) that future observations might reveal to be false. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29821.61926. (shrink)

The concept of burden of proof is used in a wide range of discourses, from philosophy to law, science, skepticism, and even in everyday reasoning. This paper provides an analysis of the proper deployment of burden of proof, focusing in particular on skeptical discussions of pseudoscience and the paranormal, where burden of proof assignments are most poignant and relatively clear-cut. We argue that burden of proof is often misapplied or used as a mere rhetorical gambit, with little appreciation of (...) the underlying principles. The paper elaborates on an important distinction between evidential and prudential varieties of burdens of proof, which is cashed out in terms of Bayesian probabilities and error management theory. Finally, we explore the relationship between burden of proof and several (alleged) informal logical fallacies. This allows us to get a firmer grip on the concept and its applications in different domains, and also to clear up some confusions with regard to when exactly some fallacies (ad hominem, ad ignorantiam, and petitio principii) may or may not occur. (shrink)

The demarcation of pseudoscience has been one of the most important philosophical tasks since the 1960s. During the 1980s, an atmosphere of defeatism started to spread among philosophers of science, some of them claimed the failure of the demarcation project. I defend that the more auspicious approach to the problem might be through the intellectual character of epistemic agents, i.e., from the point of view of vice epistemology. Unfortunately, common lists of undesirable character features are usually based on a (...) priori reasoning, and therefore might be considered artificial or too vague. When we base our position on contemporary behavioural sciences, we can see that the epistemic character of believers in pseudoscience is for the most part determined by two related factors. Firstly, these epistemic agents show a higher level of cognitive laziness. By this I mean an inability or unwillingness to engage in reflective thinking and a reluctance to account for counterevidence. Secondly, they yield more easily to metacognitive overconfidence. This can be broadly understood as so-called “knowledge illusion”, the inability to recognize one’s own intellectual limits. The deficiency usually stems from a misunderstanding of the division of cognitive labour and of the agent’s role in epistemic society. I find the proposed epistemological approach to pseudoscience crucial. Only if we understand the descriptive aspects of the problem, can we think of normative solutions to it. (shrink)

Après un examen des emplois antérieurs du terme « pseudotechnologie », une définition est proposée : « Une pseudotechnologie est une technologie présumée, irrémédiablement dysfonctionnelle pour l’usage auquel elle est destinée, puisqu’elle est basée sur des principes de construction qui ne peuvent pas être mis en œuvre ». La relation entre la pseudotechnologie et la pseudoscience est examinée, tout comme la relation entre la pseudotechnologie et le concept beaucoup plus faible de malfonction technologique. Une explication est proposée de la (...) raison pour laquelle la pseudotechnologie est beaucoup plus rarement mentionnée que la pseudoscience : le dysfonctionnement d’une technologie se manifeste généralement au moment de son utilisation, tandis que le dysfonctionnement d’une science est généralement plus difficile à établir. (shrink)

Introduction: In the past, psychoanalysis was classified as a pseudoscience. Karl Popper was one of those who objected to the idea that psychoanalysis is a science, using falsifiability. However, falsifiability cannot be considered sufficient anymore, since it carries major weaknesses and better alternatives to address the issue are available. Objective: This article intends to evaluate the scientific status of psychoanalysis concerning the demarcation problem. Method: In order to do so, Sven Ove Hansson’s criteria were used. His proposal consists of (...) a set of sufficient and necessary conditions which is complemented by a multicriteria list that helps identifying pseudosciences. It was analyzed how much psychoanalysis fits each of Hansson's seven items, besides proposing the addition of an eighth. Results: The results showed that psychoanalysis was compatible with all eight demarcation of pseudoscience’s items. Conclusion: In the end, the conclusion was that even if falsifiability was to be dismissed, the evidence suggests that there are still enough reasons to affirm that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience, since it significantly deviates from scientific quality standards. (shrink)

An old philosophical problem of delineating science from pseudoscience has in today’s world far superseded the task of unearthing sufficient and necessary conditions which science should be able to satisfy and on which pseudoscience would fall short. Our interests have shifted from the search for the rigorous criteria of demarcation, to describing various scientific and pseudoscientific activities – as well as bringing the psychological backgrounds of beliefs in numerous pseudoscientific theories to light. We aim to pinpoint some of (...) the key characteristics of said activities and the strategies they employ. Also, we attempt to answer the question of why are individuals prone to believing various conspiracy theories, alternative historical explanations and other pseudoscientific theories. (shrink)

Here we discuss and hope to solve a problem rooted in the necessity of the study of historical science, the slow deviation of physics education over the past century, and how the loss of crucial contextual tool has debilitated discussion of a very important yet specialized physics sub-topic: the isotropy of the one-way speed of light. Most notably, the information that appears to be most commonly missing is not simply the knowledge of the historical fact that Poincare and Lorentz presented (...) a mathematically equivalent representation of relativity theory contemporary with Einstein’s publication, but the most deleterious outcome is a lack of understanding of how that theory worked within a mechanical wave system to give the same results in all known experiments via an instrumentation-based illusion. Unfortunately those well educated in relativity theory, often haven’t been granted the advantage of contrast this history of development of the theory gives and thus some of the most direct and critical implications of modern theory are often lost on even graduate students. Chief among the implications that should be trivial to a student of relativity is the incompatibility of a mechanical wave concept of light with the modern assumptions of relativity. However, one should also be able to expect a graduate student to also easily comprehend the mathematical necessity of conjoining space with time is only descended from the presumption of isotropic constancy specifically, and further that the mechanics are one and the same as the relativity of simultaneity. However, many published papers appear to lack this understanding. The result is that the modern consensus appears to have arrived at the conclusion that the one-way speed of light is intrinsically untestable and therefore the physics community has accidentally pushed Minkowski spacetime, and most directly, the relativity of simultaneity, into the domain of pseudoscience, leaving only the historical relativistic “ether” described by Mansouri-Sexl test theory (AKA Lorentz Ether Theory) as the only workable alternative. This situation must be re-examined at the lowest possible level to arrive at an appropriate experimental regime. (shrink)

Problematizando o SER, o EU, o consciente e o inconscinte humano, do nascituro ao pós nascimento..-|||-Problematizing the BEING, the I, the conscious and the unconscious human, from the unborn child in the mother's womb to after birth.--|||--Problematizar el SER, el YO, el humano consciente e inconsciente, desde el feto en el vientre materno hasta después del nacimiento.----||||----TÍTULO: ---PELA CIENTIFICIDADE FRENTE AS PSEUDOCIÊNCIAS ROMÂNTICAS, MÍTICAS E DE CRENÇAS NA CONCEPÇÃO DO EU, DO CONSCIENTE E INCONSCIENTE DOS NASCITUROS E RECÉM-NASCIDOS.---||||----TITLE: ----FOR SCIENTIFITY (...) IN THE FACE OF ROMANTIC AND MYTHICAL PSEUDOSCIENCE AND BELIEFS IN THE CONCEPTION OF THE "I", OF THE CONSCIOUS AND UNCONSCIOUS OF THE UNBORN AND NEWBORN. -----||||---TÍTULO: ---POR LA CIENTIFICIDAD FRENTE A LAS PSEUDOCIENCIAS Y CREENCIAS ROMÁNTICAS Y MÍTICAS EN LA CONCEPCIÓN DEL YO, DEL CONSCIENTE Y DEL INCONSCIENTE DEL NO NACIDO Y DEL RECIÉN NACIDO--|||---RESUMO: Quando surge o EU do SER, no nascituro ou no recém-nascido? Há diferenças entre o EU desse SER nos dois momentos, vivencias, experiencias e movimentos distintos? No útero materno e ou após o nascimento? E o que dizer sobre a questão da consciência e inconsciência desse SER e EU simultaneamente? Há consciência e inconsciência? Apenas uma delas?! Nenhuma!? E se houver uma apenas ou as duas, elas estão ativas? São iguais no útero e após o nascimento? Podem mudar ou se modificarem? Poderíamos dizer sobre um EU, consciência e inconsciente antes de nascer e depois de nascer? Só existe um EU depois de sair do útero materno? Há apenas consciência e inconsciência após o nascimento do SER e EU? Estas são as questões que tentaremos trabalhar no ensaio em tela e suas problemáticas da atualidade. Importante informar que a noção e concepção consciente e inconsciente discutidas aqui não irão estar restritas aos aspectos moral, jurídico, religioso, formal, cultural e social, elas estarão na dimensão e pauta das áreas das neurociências, biofisiológicas, biopsíquicas e filosófica. Desse modo, realizaremos um trabalho de busca e resgate histórico do Eu, do Consciente e Inconsciente da espécie humana, no qual produções como as de Freud serão nossa base inicial e de discussões críticas quanto ao que vem sendo confeccionado sobre a história e atuação dessas esferas psíquicas da humanidade. Sendo assim, realizaremos um movimento de historiografia desses componentes da psiquê, situando-os no tempo e espaço histórico, geográfico, cultural, corporal e mental. Palavras-chave: Ciência; Pseudociências; nascituros.----||||||-----ABSTRACT: When does the I of BEING arise, in the unborn or the newborn? Are there differences between the I of this BEING in the two distinct moments, experiences, and movements? In the womb or after birth? And what about the question of consciousness and unconsciousness of this BEING and I simultaneously? Is there consciousness and unconsciousness? Only one of them? None? And if there is only one or both, are they active? Are they the same in the womb and after birth? Can they change or modify each other? Could we say about an I, consciousness and unconscious before birth and after birth? Is there only an I after leaving the mother's womb? Is there only consciousness and unconsciousness after the BEING and I are born? These are the questions that we will try to work on in this essay and its current problems. It is important to inform that the notion and conception of conscious and unconscious discussed here will not be restricted to moral, juridical, religious, formal, cultural and social aspects, they will be in the dimension and agenda of the neuroscience, biophysiological, biopsychic and philosophical areas. In this way, we will carry out a historical search and rescue work of the "I", the Conscious and the Unconscious of the human species, in which productions such as those of Freud initial base and of critical discussions about what has been done about the history and performance of these psychic spheres of humanity. Thus, we will carry out a historiographical movement of these components of the psyches, situating them in historical, geographic, cultural, biological, body and mental time and space.------|||||-----RESUMEN: ¿Cuándo surge el YO del SER, en el feto o en el recién nacido? ¿Existen diferencias entre el YO de este SER en los dos momentos, diferentes vivencias, vivencias y movimientos? ¿En el útero de la madre y/o después del nacimiento? ¿Y qué podemos decir del tema de la consciencia e inconsciencia de este SER y YO simultáneamente? ¿Existe conciencia e inconsciencia? ¡¿Solo uno de ellos?! ¿¡Ninguno!? Y si solo hay uno o ambos, ¿están activos? ¿Son iguales en el útero y después del nacimiento? ¿Pueden cambiar o modificarse? ¿Podríamos decir sobre un YO, la conciencia y la inconsciencia antes del nacimiento y después del nacimiento? ¿Existe un solo YO después de salir del útero materno? ¿Existe sólo consciencia e inconsciencia después del nacimiento del SER y del YO? Estas son las cuestiones que intentaremos trabajar en el ensayo que nos ocupa y sus problemáticas actuales. Es importante informar que la noción y concepción consciente e inconsciente aquí discutida no se restringirá a los aspectos morales, legales, religiosos, formales, culturales y sociales, estarán en la dimensión y agenda de las áreas de las neurociencias, biofisiológicas, biopsíquico y filosófico. De esta manera, realizaremos un trabajo de búsqueda y rescate histórico del Yo, el Consciente y el Inconsciente de la especie humana, en el que producciones como las de Freud serán nuestra base inicial y discusiones críticas respecto de lo creado sobre la historia y el desempeño de estas esferas psíquicas de la humanidad. Por ello, realizaremos un movimiento de historiografía de estos componentes de la psique, ubicándolos en el tiempo y el espacio histórico, geográfico, cultural, corporal y mental. Palabras clave: Ciencia; Pseudociencias; Yo-I; consciente; niños inconscientes y no nacidos. (shrink)

There is no satisfactory way of distinguishing the parodies of science from the genuine thing. Philosophers tend to think science and pseudoscience differ in kind, but the fact is they differ mostly in degree.

According to Thagard, the behavior of practitioners of a field may also be used for demarcation between science and pseudoscience due to its social dimension in addition to the epistemic one. I defended the tendency of pseudoscientists to commit fallacies, and the number of fallacies they commit can be a secondary tool for demarcation problem and this tool is consistent with Thagardian approach. In this paper, I selected the astrology as the case and I revealed nine types of logical (...) fallacies frequently committed by astrologers while introducing their field and/or defending their claims against the scientific inquiries and refutation efforts. I also argued that recognizing these fallacies may help the audience to demarcate between the scientific and the pseudoscientific arguments. (shrink)

This paper reviews how research on the demarcation problem has developed, starting from Popper’s criterion of falsifiability and ending with recent naturalistically oriented approaches. The main differences between traditional and contemporary approaches to the problem are explicated in terms of six postulates called the traditional assumptions. It is argued that all of the assumptions can be dismissed without giving up on the demarcation problem and that doing so might benefit further discussions on pseudoscience. Four present-day research movements on evaluating (...) the boundaries of science are introduced: (1) philosophy of pseudoscience, (2) social epistemology of dissent, (3) agnotology, and (4) evaluation of expertise. Researchers working within these areas have abandoned some or all traditional assumptions. (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)

This paper presents a preliminary analysis of homeopathy from the perspective of the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science. In this context, Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend’s solution to the problem will be given respectively and their criteria will be applied to homeopathy, aiming to shed some light on the controversy over its scientific status. It then examines homeopathy under the lens of demarcation criteria to conclude that homeopathy is regarded as science by Feyerabend and is considered as pseudoscience (...) by Popper and Kuhn. By offering adequate tools for the analysis of the foundations, structure and implications of homeopathy, demarcation issue can help to clarify this medical controversy. The main argument of this article is that a final decision on homeopathy, whose scientific status changes depending on the criteria of the philosophers mentioned, cannot be given. (shrink)

Philosophers of science have given up on the quest for a silver bullet to put an end to all pseudoscience, as such a neat formal criterion to separate good science from its contenders has proven elusive. In the literature on critical thinking and in some philosophical quarters, however, this search for silver bullets lives on in the taxonomies of fallacies. The attractive idea is to have a handy list of abstract definitions or argumentation schemes, on the basis of which (...) one can identify bad or invalid types of reasoning, abstracting away from the specific content and dialectical context. Such shortcuts for debunking arguments are tempting, but alas, the promise is hardly if ever fulfilled. Different strands of research on the pragmatics of argumentation, probabilistic reasoning and ecological rationality have shown that almost every known type of fallacy is a close neighbor to sound inferences or acceptable moves in a debate. Nonetheless, the kernel idea of a fallacy as an erroneous type of argument is still retained by most authors. We outline a destructive dilemma we refer to as the Fallacy Fork: on the one hand, if fallacies are construed as demonstrably invalid form of reasoning, then they have very limited applicability in real life. On the other hand, if our definitions of fallacies are sophisticated enough to capture real-life complexities, they can no longer be held up as an effective tool for discriminating good and bad forms of reasoning. As we bring our schematic “fallacies” in touch with reality, we seem to lose grip on normative questions. Even approaches that do not rely on argumentation schemes to identify fallacies fail to escape the Fallacy Fork, and run up against their own version of it. (shrink)

Gatekeeping, or determining membership of your group, is crucial to science: the moniker ‘scientific’ is a stamp of epistemic quality or even authority. But gatekeeping in science is fraught with dangers. Gatekeepers must exclude bad science, science fraud and pseudoscience, while including the disagreeing viewpoints on which science thrives. This is a difficult tightrope, not least because gatekeeping is a human matter and can be influenced by biases such as groupthink. After spelling out these general tensions around gatekeeping in (...) science, we shed light on them with a case study from psychology. This concerns whether academic psychologists rightly or wrongly classify the applied-psychology framework of NLP (‘neuro-linguistic programming’) as unscientific and even pseudoscientific. This example of gatekeeping is particularly instructive because both the NLP community and the psychology community, we argue, make legitimate but also illegitimate moves. This case gives rise to several general insights about gatekeeping in science more generally. (shrink)

Finding the demarcation criterion for the identification of scientific knowledge is the most important task of normative epistemology. Pseudoscience is not a harmless leisure activity, it can pose a danger to the functioning of liberal democratic societies and the well-being of their citizens. First, there is an outline of how to define science instrumentally without slipping into the detrimental heritage of conceptual essentialism. The second part is dedicated to Popper’s falsification criterion and the objections of its opponents, which eventually (...) led to the abandonment of “naïve” falsificationism. Then I present two promising solutions to the problem, namely the ostensive definition of pseudoscience and the cognitive research of pseudoscientific thinking. In conclusion, I suggest to further extend the typology of alternatives to science to include parascience. (shrink)

The book covers scientific and philosophical topics by bringing them closer to literature. Some topics are scientific explanation, the concept of cause, rational argumentation, pseudoscience, language, ethics, philosophy of mind, posthumanism, and democracy. Summary Prefazione di Severino Saccardi. Introduzione. Capitolo 1: Le scrivanie di Eddington. 1.1. Il vecchio Qfwfq (I. Calvino. Le cosmicomiche). 1.2. L’assassino invisibile (L.F. Celine, Il dottor Semmelweis). 1.3. Gli gnommeri di Ingravallo (C.E. Gadda, Quer pasticciaccio brutto de via Merulana). 1.4. I sergenti di Napoleone (L. (...) Tolstoj, Guerra e pace). 1.5. Tex e il Coyote nero (G. Bonelli, Il Coyote nero). 1.6. “Elementare Watson!” (A.C. Doyle, Il segno dei quattro). Capitolo 2. Non saranno mai delusi. 2.1. L’albero di Natale. (V. Perrin, Cambiare l’acqua ai fiori). 2.2. Il dagherrotipo di Buendia. (G.G. Marquez, Cent’anni di solitudine). 2.3. Don Ferrante e la peste. (A. Manzoni, I promessi sposi). Capitolo 3. Capitolo puffo. 3.1. L’Accademia di Lagado. (J. Swift, I viaggi di Gulliver). 3.2. Bruto è uomo d’onore. (W. Shakespeare, Giulio Cesare). 3.3. Le oche mute. (G. Orwell, 1984). Capitolo 4. “Quarantadue!” 4.1. Lo zio N’Ba N’Ga. (I. Calvino, Le cosmicomiche). 4.2. La mosca cocchiera. (J. de La Fontaine, Favole). 4.3. Il fiore del dr. Dek. (E. Salgari, Le meraviglie del Duemila). Capitolo 5. L’ultimo uomo. 5.1. La pernice accusatrice. (Cyrano de Bergerac, Gli stati e gli imperi del Sole). 5.2. Pallino in via Mjasnickaja. (M.A. Bulgakov, Cuore di cane). Capitolo 6. Scenari perturbanti. 6.1. Dissipatio. (G. Morselli, Dissipatio H.G.). 6.2. Un mammifero meccanizzato. (S. Butler, Erewhon). 6.3. Mlle Olimpia. (E.T.A. Hoffmann, Racconti notturni). Capitolo 7. La gente perbene. 7.1. La balena bianca. (H. Melville, Moby Dick). 7.2. Betsabea Everdeene. (T. Hardy, Via dalla pazza folla). 7.3. Un’idea francese. (C. McCarthy, Cavalli selvaggi). 7.4. Le montagne del Montana. (D. Delillo, Rumore bianco). (shrink)

To what extend does David Hume's argument about miracles inform modern skepticism about pseudoscience?

This article argues that pseudoscience lacks an adequate philosophical analysis. Using conspiracy theories as a case study, it is claimed that such an analysis needs to go beyond a mere epistemological approach. In the first part, it is shown that the existing philosophical literature shares the assumption that conspiracy theories are primarily deficient scientific hypotheses. This claim is contested, because such an approach can only understand what conspiracy theories fail to be, but not what they are and why people (...) tend to endorse them. To develop an alternative, the second part starts from recent sociology of science, applied to conspiracy theories, that claims that both true and false theories are in need of a symmetrical social explanation. However, this opens the path to relativism because it does not allow for a significant distinction between scientific and conspiracy theories. In the third section an alternative analysis of conspiracy theories is offered, which does not abandon this distinction. Moreover, it is claimed that the most important element of conspiracy theories is not their truth value but rather their symbolic structures of meaning. The aim of conspiracy theories, and perhaps of pseudoscience in general, is then not to know facts about the world, but rather to offer a meaningful framework within which to live. (shrink)

The “demarcation problem,” the issue of how to separate science from pseu- doscience, has been around since fall 1919—at least according to Karl Pop- per’s (1957) recollection of when he first started thinking about it. In Popper’s mind, the demarcation problem was intimately linked with one of the most vexing issues in philosophy of science, David Hume’s problem of induction (Vickers 2010) and, in particular, Hume’s contention that induction cannot be logically justified by appealing to the fact that “it works,” (...) as that in itself is an inductive argument, thereby potentially plunging the philosopher straight into the abyss of a viciously circular argument. (shrink)

It is often noted that if someone has a tertiary degree in a scientific field who promotes an anti-science-establishment, antiscience, or pseudoscience agenda, they are very often engineers, dentists, surgeons or medical practitioners. While this does not mean that all members of these professions or disciplines are antiscience, of course, the higher frequency of pseudoscience among them is indicative of what I call the “deductivist mindset” regarding science itself. Opposing this is the “inductivist mindset”, a view that has (...) been deprecated among philosophers since Popper. Roughly, the deductivist mindset tends to see problems as questions that can be resolved by deduction from known theory or principle, while the inductivist sees problems as questions to be resolved by discovery. These form cognitive poles, which nobody ever purely instantiates, but a cognitive tendency to be a deductivist may explain why some people find results that conflict with prior theoretical commitments, whether scientific or not, unacceptable. The deductivist tends to be a cognitive conservative, where the inductivist tends to be a cognitive progressive, and the conservative mindset leads to a ressentiment about modernism, and hence about certain scientific results, more often, or so I shall argue in this chapter. (shrink)

While first-person methods are essential for a science of consciousness, it is controversial what form these methods should take and whether any such methods are reliable. I propose that first-person experiments are a reliable method for investigating conscious experience. I outline the history of these methods and describe their characteristics. In particular, a first-person experiment is an intervention on a subject's experience in which independent variables are manipulated, extraneous variables are held fixed, and in which the subject makes a phenomenal (...) judgement about the target experience of the investigation. I examine historical and contemporary examples of first-person experiments: Mariotte’s demonstration of the visual blind spot, Kanizsa’s subjective contours, the Tse Illusion, and investigations of the non-uniform resolution of the visual field. I discuss the role that phenomenal contrast plays in these methods, and how they overcome typical introspective errors. I argue that their intersubjective repeatability is an important factor in their scientific status, however, it is not the only factor. That they control for extraneous factors and confounds is another factor which sets them apart from pseudoscience (e.g., the perception of auras), and hence another reason for classifying them as genuine experiments. Furthermore, by systematically mapping out the structure of visual experience, these methods make scientific progress. Praises of such first-person experimental approaches may not always be sung by philosophers and psychologists, but they continue to flourish as respectable scientific methods nevertheless. (shrink)

A critique of popular astrology. The critical examination outlines a number of serious concerns with the theory underlying astrology.

Three chapters from the book by A.L. Gurtovtsev "Genetics through the eyes of a philosopher" (2024). A brief history of the formation in Soviet biology of the 1930s and 60s of the attitude towards classical genetics as a bourgeois, reactionary pseudoscience with the stigma of "Weismanism-Mendelism-Morganism". The origins of classical genetics (Mendel's and Morgan's laws). Michurinsky biology and Lysenkoism. Party repressions against Soviet biologists and geneticists.

Abstract -- Most research reviews are concerned with empirical findings. This one takes astrological concepts and principles, the ideas on which astrology is based, and submits them to critical evaluation. It covers recent shifts in astrological ideas, how astrologers avoid dealing with criticism, and the problems associated with (in turn) the fundamental assumptions of astrology, the origins of astrological ideas, modern psychological astrology, astrological world views, astrological symbolism, non-falsifiability, and magical influences. To be plausible astrology needs sound ideas with sound (...) origins, and sound methods for verifying those ideas. But none of the possible origins of astrological ideas (revelation, paranormal, analogy, observation, theory) are plausible. Astrologers can explain away wrong chart interpretations by blaming the symbolism, inadvertently left out factors (such as an asteroid) method, data, the astrologer or the client. They can also dismiss the interpretation as misguided (it used to be visible events, now it is invisible inner meaning). So astrologers could never know if astrology was wrong or which of their explanatory theories could actually apply. Central ideas such as "as above so below" and "inter-connectedness" and the "whole chart" are too poorly developed to amount to anything useful. There is little agreement on many basic issues and on how to resolve differences among astrological techniques and ideas. Astrological symbolism is unsystematic and based on metaphors, analogies, verbal associations, word play, and mythology, which are developed in different ways by different astrologers with no clear way of evaluating them. The philosophies and worldviews associated with astrology are underdeveloped or poorly described. Consequently astrology does not have the resources to put its house in order. Astrology seems quite unlikely to deliver anything beyond what non-astrological factors (eg cognitive and perceptual biases) can account for. With copious quotes from leading astrologers and nearly 250 references. (shrink)

Peer review is an opportunity to perform an unlawful censorship which ensures that no apostate notion ever get published in mainstream journals. Or such peer review censorship is an opportunity to steal any content and to claim afterward the priority of first publication. And last but not least, the peer review is an academic tool to promote the mainstream pseudoscience.

Robert Saudek, a Czech graphologist, journalist, diplomat, playwright, and novelist, was heavily influenced in his youth by Fritz Mauthner’s critique of language. Saudek later became a pioneer in the field of psychological graphology. In this article, I examine the impact of Mauthner’s critique on Saudek’s work and evaluate whether Saudek’s approach to graphology aligns with Mauthner’s ideas. I argue that, although Saudek’s graphology is rooted in Mauthner’s critique of experimental psychology, there remains room for further development in the field of (...) psychological graphology, centering on the analysis of language. With this in mind, I compare Saudek’s method and contemporary conceptual metaphor theory. I further suggest that Saudek’s extensive use of the autographs of well-known figures follows a method of working from examples, or specimens, which is not uncommon in the philosophy of science. Based on these findings, I propose a way of understanding Saudek’s graphology that challenges its characterization as a pseudoscience. (shrink)

The aim of this study is to determine the perceptions of gifted and talented 4th grade primary school students towards pseudoscience, as well as their awareness of scientific process skills by using pseudoscientific scenarios. Specifically, the aim is to reveal the students’ knowledge about crystals, which is a pseudoscientific issue, views on treatments carried out with crystals, experiences about experiments, knowledge about scientific process skills and scientific process skills used in proposing research methodology for claims about crystals’ healing abilities.

We live in a world that is increasingly shaped by and bathed in science, with most scientific progress occurring in the past century, and much of it in the past few decades. Yet, several authors have puz- zled over the observation that modern societies are also characterized by a high degree of belief in a variety of pseudoscientific claims that have been thoroughly debunked or otherwise discarded by scientists (Anonymous, 2001; Ede, 2000).

This is the first book in a two-volume series. The present volume introduces the basics of the conceptual foundations of quantum physics. It appeared first as a series of video lectures on the online learning platform Udemy.]There is probably no science that is as confusing as quantum theory. There's so much misleading information on the subject that for most people it is very difficult to separate science facts from pseudoscience. The goal of this book is to make you able (...) to separate facts from fiction with a comprehensive introduction to the scientific principles of a complex topic in which meaning and interpretation never cease to puzzle and surprise. An A-Z guide which is neither too advanced nor oversimplified to the weirdness and paradoxes of quantum physics explained from the first principles to modern state-of-the-art experiments and which is complete with figures and graphs that illustrate the deeper meaning of the concepts you are unlikely to find elsewhere. A guide for the autodidact or philosopher of science who is looking for general knowledge about quantum physics at intermediate level furnishing the most rigorous account that an exposition can provide and which only occasionally, in few special chapters, resorts to a mathematical level that goes no further than that of high school. It will save you a ton of time that you would have spent searching elsewhere, trying to piece together a variety of information. The author tried to span an 'arch of knowledge' without giving in to the temptation of taking an excessively one-sided account of the subject. What is this strange thing called quantum physics? What is its impact on our understanding of the world? What is ‘reality’ according to quantum physics? This book addresses these and many other questions through a step-by-step journey. The central mystery of the double-slit experiment and the wave-particle duality, the fuzzy world of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the weird Schrödinger's cat paradox, the 'spooky action at a distance' of quantum entanglement, the EPR paradox and much more are explained, without neglecting such main contributors as Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Feynman and others who struggled themselves to come up with the mysterious quantum realm. We also take a look at the experiments conducted in recent decades, such as the surprising "which-way" and "quantum-erasure" experiments. Some considerations on why and how quantum physics suggests a worldview based on philosophical idealism conclude this first volume. This treatise goes, at times, into technical details that demand some effort and therefore requires some basics of high school math (calculus, algebra, trigonometry, elementary statistics). However, the final payoff will be invaluable: Your knowledge of, and grasp on, the subject of the conceptual foundations of quantum physics will be deep, wide, and outstanding. Additionally, because schools, colleges, and universities teach quantum physics using a dry, mostly technical approach which furnishes only superficial insight into its foundations, this manual is recommended for all those students, physicists or philosophers of science who would like to look beyond the mere formal aspect and delve deeper into the meaning and essence of quantum mechanics. The manual is a primer that the public deserves. (shrink)

Bu çalışmada; bilim, sözdebilim ayrımına yönelik tasarlanan öğretim etkinliklerinin, 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin sözdebilimsel inançlarına ve eleştirel düşünme becerilerine etkisini araştırmak ayrıca hangi bilimsellik ve hatalı bilimsellik ölçütlerine sahip olduklarını belirlemek amaçlanmıştır. Bu amaçlar doğrultusunda araştırmanının modeli iç içe karma desen olarak belirlenmiştir. Çalışma, 2018-2019 eğitim öğretim yılının ikinci döneminde, Kocaeli ili Başiskele ilçesinde bulunan bir devlet ortaokulunda gerçekleştirilmiştir. Çalışmanın nicel kısmında bir deney (n=29) ve bir kontrol (n=30) grubu olmak üzere 59 öğrenci, nitel kısmında ise deney grubunda bulunan 29 öğrenci (...) bulunmaktadır. On hafta süren araştırmada deney grubunda; farklı sözdebilimsel içerikler yer alan bilim, sözde–bilim ayrımı bağlamında hazırlanan etkinlikler ile öğretim gerçekleştirilmiş, kontrol grubundaysa mevcut öğretim programında öngörülen etkinliklerle ders işlenmiştir. Çalışmaların tamamı seçmeli bilim uygulamaları derslerinde gerçekleştirilmiştir. Veri toplama aracı olarak; Sözdebilim İnanç Ölçeği, Eleştirel Düşünme ölçekleri Takımı ve araştırmacı tarafından geliştirilen öğrenci görüşme formları kullanılmıştır. Verilerin analizinde, karışık ölçümler için iki yönlü varyans analizi ve içerik analizi kullanılmıştır. Ayrıca veri analizlerinde, SPSS 18.0 paket programı ve Nvivo 12 nitel veri analizi programından yararlanılmıştır. Araştırmanın bulgularına göre, 7. sınıf öğrencilerinin eleştirel düşünme becerileri orta, sözdebilimsel inançları yüksektir. Tasarlanan öğretim etkinlikleri öğrencilerin eleştirel düşünme becerilerini arttırmış, sözdebilimsel inançlarını azaltmıştır. Öğrenci görüşlerinde tespit edilen hatalı bilimsellik ölçütleri, mantığa bürüme, etkililik, bilimsel kavramlar içerme, otoriteye dayanma, kaynak içerme, geçmişten gelen bilgi ve çoğunluk görüşüdür. Öğrenci görüşlerinde tespit edilen bilimsellik ölçütleri ise ölçütleri kanıtlanabilirlik, test edilebilirlik, tutarlılık, tekrarlanabilirlik, bilim dünyasının desteği, mantığa aykırılık ve kasıtlı bilimsel jargondur. Yapılan sözdebilimsel içerikli etkinlikler arasında öğrencilerin en fazla hataya düştükleri etkinlikler astroloji ve antik astronot kuramı olmuştur. (shrink)

Stephen Hawking claims: Philosophy is dead! Natural scientists use terms like 'natural law', 'matter', 'nature' and 'theories'. Often these terms are taken for granted without reflection. The task of philosophy of science as a metatheory of science is to clarify these terms. In doing so, philosophy of science is confronted with epistemological, ontological and metaphysical questions. But it also deals with questions such as "How do we define the boundaries between different scientific disciplines?" or "How do we distinguish science from (...) pseudoscience?". In addition, philosophy of science deals with ethical problems of modern technology, with methodological issues, with reconstructing the structure and development of scientific theories, and with exposing ideological paternalism of science. The optimistic conclusion is: Philosophy is not dead - but philosophers must discuss with scientists on an equal footing. (shrink)

Selon Popper, une théorie scientifique peut être légitimement sauvée de la falsification en introduisant une hypothèse auxiliaire permettant de générer de nouvelles prédictions falsifiables. De plus, s’il existe des soupçons de biais ou d’erreur, les chercheurs pourraient introduire une hypothèse auxiliaire falsifiable, qui permettrait de procéder à des tests. De nombreux autres auteurs ont proposé des critères pour démarquer la science de la pseudoscience. Celles-ci incluent généralement la croyance en l'autorité, des expériences irremplaçables, des exemples choisis, le manque de (...) volonté de tester, le non-respect des informations de réfutation, un subterfuge intégré, des explications abandonnées sans remplacement. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36437.99041. (shrink)

In the opening lines of this article it is claimed that history is a discipline taking role as part of unique body of science. The concept of scientific rationality is presented as the criterion of demarcation between science and pseudoscience. From this statement as a starting point, it follows that the methodological grounds for scientific predictions are common for all scientific disciplines. Different aspects of scientific predicting are critically examined: thesis of symmetry, determinism and predictability, indeterminism and predictability, reflexivity (...) of predictions, prediction of novelty and progress, predictions in relation to the time of their uttering, the prediction sketch, truthfulness and regularity in implying prediction, and predictability of human actions. In the concluding section, the author admits of the possibility of constructing the theory of history, opposed to eschatological philosophy of history, as a predictive theory with a scientific basis and a theory whose specifications limit its misuse in practice. (shrink)

This article aims to discuss Bunge's critique of Popper's falsifiabilism as a criterion for distinguishing science from pseudoscience. First, it provides a historical background to the distinction of science; secondly, it explore Duhem-Quine thesis as an early objection to falsifiability, and thirdly, it discusses Bunge's criticism of falsifiability as all-around false — logically, methodologically, psychologically, and historically; and finally, it provides the criteria of scientificity from Bunge's point of view. في الوقت الذي يتسابق فيه العلماء من أجل الكشف عن (...) علاج لفيروس كورونا (كوفيد-19)، تطل علينا وسائل إعلامية لتقدم بعض الوصفات بوصفها علاجًا مثل الشلولو (ملوخية جافة مع الثوم والليمون والشطة)، والفول، ونحو ذلك، ومهمة فلاسفة العلم هي إعادة النظر من حين إلى آخر في ما يميز العلم من اللاعلم والعلم الزائف. ولعلّ أقل فائدة للفلسفة العلمية هي حمايتنا من هذا من الخداع الفكري. تدور هذه المقالة على ثلاث خطوات، تقدم الأولى خلفية تاريخية لمشكلة تمييز العلم، وتعرض الثانية حلّ بوبر لهذه المشكلة، واعتراض نزعة الكلية عليه، وتعالج الثالثة نقد بونجي لحل بوبر، وتصوره الخاص لمعايير العلم. (shrink)

The creation-evolution “controversy” has been with us for more than a century. Here I argue that merely teaching more science will probably not improve the situation; we need to understand the controversy as part of a broader problem with public acceptance of pseudoscience, and respond by teaching how science works as a method. Critical thinking is difficult to teach, but educators can rely on increasing evidence from neurobiology about how the brain learns, or fails to.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Why Gaia?Massimo Pigliucci (bio)The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet, Michael Ruse, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. 272 pages.“The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet tells a story that comes out of the 1960s, a story that reflects all of the beliefs and enthusiasms and tensions of that decade.” So begins Michael Ruse’s fascinating, if at times puzzling, exploration of James Lovelock’s famous idea that our (...) planet is, in a serious scientific sense, a living organism with a tendency of taking care of (her)self. But why tell this particular story, especially considering that Gaia hardly makes an appearance in today’s scientific or philosophical publications, and doesn’t even seem quite that popular with the lay public as it used to be? Because, as Ruse tells us near the end of the book, at the onset of chapter seven: “the paradox that set us on our path [is] why the scientific community reacted so negatively to the Gaia hypothesis, whereas the public reaction was so positive.”As it turns out, there is a good answer to that conundrum, one that Ruse himself lays out clearly in the last chapter of the book, and which makes the reader wonder why this should count a paradox at all. But we will get there in due time. First, the basics: the so-called Gaia hypothesis is the brainchild of iconoclastic inventor-turned-independent-scientist James Lovelock, who later got significant help in elaborating (and promoting) his ideas from another iconoclast, biologist Lynn Margulis. By the time you get to the end of Ruse’s engaging book, however, you won’t have gained a particularly good understanding of what the hypothesis actually consists. But that’s not Ruse’s fault, it is Lovelock’s (and Margulis’). At times it sounds like the entirely uncontroversial claim that the Earth’s [End Page 117] biosphere is a somewhat homeostatic system—i.e., a biophysical system that is resistant to major changes, at the least within a certain range (the planet’s atmosphere, after all, did change dramatically early on, increasing its oxygen content as a result of the evolution of photosynthetic organisms—the anaerobic life forms that had up to that point been dominant did not appreciate the novelty). At other times the claim is downright preposterous: the Earth literally is a living organism (according to Lovelock) (Chapter 7),1 a finding that allegedly puts in question the whole Darwinian view of biological evolution (according to Margulis) (Chapter 7), a position that can only be characterized as nonsense on stilts. At yet other moments, Gaia is presented as just a metaphor to help us wrap our minds around the complexities (and homeostatic properties) of the world’s ecosystems (Chapter 8). It is this never-ending oscillation between the trivial and the bizarre that has led the majority of scientists to write off Gaia, to the chagrin of Lovelock, Margulis, and a large number of New Age tree huggers from the 1960s.Indeed, the scientific reaction to Gaia was swift and ranging from the condescending to the unforgiving. Evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith—never one to mince words—called it “an evil religion” (Chapter 2). Another evolutionary biologist, Stephen Jay Gould (whose own disagreements with Maynard Smith became legendary) said that “Gaia strikes me as a metaphor, not a mechanism” (Chapter 2). Ecologist Robert May, who eventually became president of the Royal Society, called Lovelock “a holy fool” (Chapter 2). The highly respected theoretical biologist W.D. Hamilton said that in order for the hypothesis to work, it would require “treaties between Neptune and Zeus, a Gaian Interpol, conventions about bills of lading for chemical transport by air and water, and so on” (Chapter 7). Finally, Richard Dawkins accused Lovelock of committing the fallacy of “the BBC theorem,” assuming (or wishfully thinking) that the world is a harmonious place, just like in naive BBC nature documentaries (Chapter 2).You get the gist: pretty much from the beginning, and with very few exceptions, the scientific establishment rejected Gaia on the grounds that it is not a scientific hypothesis at all, and that its main tenets actually go against pretty... (shrink)

Science was not far from philosophy in ancient thought, but the two were one thing. I do not know whether the ancient philosophers considered themselves the issue of the relationship between them, as the modern and contemporary philosophers did. But the sure thing is that the natural sciences became independent from philosophy in the modern era, and most of the scientific departments in universities were divided into two parts: sciences, literature, and humanities. At the end of the nineteenth century and (...) what followed, there were attempts to link them. Charles Peirce wrote on the scientific method and scientific metaphysics. The Vienna Circle presented a scientific conception of the world and the logical empiricists and Popper was concerned with the problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. The logical empiricists provided the criterion of verifiability, and Popper proposed the falsification principle. Quine defended a natural epistemology that asserts that philosophy is part of natural science. Bunge offered his own criteria for distinguishing science in the context of scientific philosophy. In this article, I want to refute the claim that philosophy has died and that science does not need it. I proved that the notion that philosophy is useless to science is not only wrong but also harmful to society, education, and science itself. This comes in a broader context, which is the moderate scientific tendency that I have defended in some of my writings. -/- لم يكن العلم بعيدًا عن الفلسفة في الفكر القديم، بل كان الاثنان شيئًا واحدًا. ولست أدرى أكان الفلاسفة القدماء يلقون على أنفسهم مسألة العلاقة بينهما مثل ما ألقاها الفلاسفة المحدثون والمعاصرون أم لا. ولكن الشيء المحقق أن العلوم الطبيعية استقلت عن الفلسفة في العصر الحديث، وانقسمت معظم الأقسام العلمية في الجامعات إلى قسمين: العلوم، والآداب والإنسانيات. وظهرت في أواخر القرن التاسع عشر وما تلاه محاولات لربطهما. كتب تشارلز بيرس عن المنهج العلمي والميتافيزيقا العلمية. وقدمت جماعة فيينا تصورًا علميًّا للعالم، واهتم التجريبيون المنطقيون وبوبر بمشكلة تمييز العلم من العلم الزائف؛ قدم التجريبيون المنطقيون معيار القابلية للتحقق، واقترح بوبر مبدأ التكذيب. ودافع كواين عن إبستمولوجيا طبيعية تؤكد أن الفلسفة جزء من العلم الطبيعي. وقدم بونجي معاييره الخاصة لتمييز العلم في سياق الفلسفة العلمية. (shrink)

This article analyses the epistemic status of law and its presumption of being a science in relation with the so-called demarcation criterion proposed by different philosophers of science. Such criteria are the main analytical elements to differentiate scientific discourses from those who are not and the ones who pretend to be. In relation to those, pseudoscience and law are treated, to finally conclude with the exposition of the case of Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals, in which a judicial process (...) defined demarcation criteria. This paper shows how the demarcation criteria of science and the concept of pseudoscience cannot be applied to law science given its own rationality. (shrink)