No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Do we Know it When we See it? A Review of ‘Pseudoscience’ Patterns of Usage
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 July 2022
Abstract
Definitions of ‘pseudoscience’ are required to heed the established usage of the definiendum by subsuming those cases that are generally considered to be pseudoscientific, and by excluding those that are considered sciences. In this paper I sample the published record to assess the consensus on pseudoscience case classifications. The review finds inconclusive evidence for an overall agreement. However, the frequent usage of a small number of pseudoscience-cases indicates that these are considered paradigms of pseudoscience. I briefly discuss some practical implications of these findings for the pseudoscience demarcation project.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Abi-Hashem, N. (2013). ‘Parapsychology, Sects, Cults, and Religious Fundamentalism.’ In Plante, T.G. (ed.), Abnormal Psychology Across the Ages, Vol. 2, pp. 231–46. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Brun, G. (2020). ‘Conceptual Re-engineering: From Explication to Reflective Equilibrium.’ Synthese. doi: 10.1007/s11229-017-1596-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1962). Logical Foundations of Probability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Crabtree, A. (2012). ‘Parapsychology.’ In Rieber, R.W. (ed.), Encyclopedia of the History of Psychological Theories, pp. 754–65. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Fasce, A. (2017). ‘What Do we Mean When We Speak of Pseudoscience? The Development of a Demarcation Criterion Based on the Analysis of Twenty-one Previous Attempts.’ Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin 6(7), 459–88.Google Scholar
Fasce, A. (2020). ‘Are Pseudosciences Like Seagulls? A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem.’ International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32(3–4), 155–75. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2020.1767891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, B. and Cutting, R. (2017). ‘Magical Beliefs and Discriminating Science From Pseudoscience in Undergraduate Professional Students.’ Heliyon 3(11), e00433.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordin, M.D. (2012). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe, Vol. 104. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S.O. (2009). ‘Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation.’ International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23(3), 237–43. doi: 10.1080/02698590903196007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S.O. (2013). ‘Defining Peudoscience and Science.’ In Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, pp. 61–78. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, S.O. (2021). ‘Science and Pseudo-Science.’ In Zalta, E.N. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/.Google Scholar
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1983). ‘The Demise of the Demarcation Problem.’ In Cohen, R.S. and Laudan, L. (eds), Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honour of Adolf Grünbaum, Vol. 76, pp. 111–27. doi: 10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6.Google Scholar
Mahner, M. (2013). ‘Science and Pseudoscience: How to Demarcate after the (Alleged) Demise of the Demarcation Problem.’ In Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, pp. 29–44. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monton, B. (2013). ‘Pseudoscience.’ In Curd, M. and Psillos, S. (eds), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, 2nd edn, pp. 469–78. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
MSPSI (2011). Informe sobre uso de medicina natural en España. www.mscbs.gob.es/novedades/docs/analisisSituacionTNatu.pdf.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2013). ‘The Problem of Demarcation: History and Future.’ In Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, pp. 101. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Philpapers (n.d.-a). ‘About PhilPapers.’ Retrieved from https://philpapers.org/help/about.html.Google Scholar
Philpapers (n.d.-b). ‘Frequently Asked Questions.’ https://philpapers.org/help/faq.html.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds) (2013). ‘Why the Demarcation Problem Matters.’ In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, pp. 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rationalwiki (2021). List of pseudosciences. 10 January 2021. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences.Google Scholar
Shermer, M. (2002). The Skeptic Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.Google Scholar
Sokal, A. (2008). Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
The Philosopher's Index (n.d.). ‘The Philosopher's Index is the Most Authoritative Online Bibliography in Philosophy.’ https://philindex.org/.Google Scholar
Wikipedia (2021 a). ‘List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience.’ 1 February, 06:50 (UTC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience.Google Scholar
Wikipedia (2021 b). ‘Talk: List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience.’ 12 June. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AList_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience%2FArchive_15?oldformat=true.Google Scholar
Letrud supplementary material
Letrud supplementary material
File
287.8 KB