On Pseudoscience
In: Critique: journal of socialist theory, Band 37, Heft 3, S. 425-439
ISSN: 1748-8605
213 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Critique: journal of socialist theory, Band 37, Heft 3, S. 425-439
ISSN: 1748-8605
This book explains the science of climate change in plain language and shows that the 2 to 4 percent of climate scientists who are skeptical that humans are the main cause of global warming are a fringe minority-and have a well-established history of being wrong
In: The public perspective: a Roper Center review of public opinion and polling, Band 12, Heft 5, S. 24-26
ISSN: 1050-5067
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 200, Heft 5
ISSN: 1573-0964
AbstractHomoeopathy is commonly recognised as pseudoscience. However, there is, to date, no systematic discussion that seeks to establish this view. In this paper, we try to fill this gap. We explain the nature of homoeopathy, discuss the notion of pseudoscience, and provide illustrative examples from the literature indicating why homoeopathy fits the bill. Our argument contains a conceptual and an empirical part. In the conceptual part, we introduce the premise that a doctrine qualifies as a pseudoscience if, firstly, its proponents claim scientific standing for it and, secondly, if they produce bullshit to defend it, such that, unlike science, it cannot be viewed as the most reliable knowledge on its topic. In the empirical part, we provide evidence that homoeopathy fulfils both criteria. The first is quickly established since homoeopaths often explicitly claim scientificity. To establish the second, we dive into the pseudo-academic literature on homoeopathy to provide evidence of bullshit in the arguments of homoeopaths. Specifically, we show that they make bizarre ontological claims incompatible with natural science, illegitimately shift the burden of proof to sceptics, and mischaracterise, cherry-pick, and misreport the evidence. Furthermore, we demonstrate that they reject essential parts of established scientific methodology and use epistemically unfair strategies to immunise their doctrine against recalcitrant evidence.
In: Russian social science review: a journal of translations, Band 36, Heft 5, S. 75-94
ISSN: 1557-7848
In: Social work research & abstracts, Band 22, Heft 2, S. 2-2
In: Regulating Religion; Critical Issues in Social Justice, S. 127-149
In: Filozofia, Band 76, Heft 10, S. 735-751
ISSN: 2585-7061
In: Ideas in ecology and evolution, Band 7
ISSN: 1918-3178
In: Europe Asia studies, Band 49, Heft 5, S. 929-932
ISSN: 0966-8136
In: Acta Baltica historiae et philosophiae scientiarum: ABHPS, Band 11, Heft 2, S. 3-31
ISSN: 2228-2017
Philosophers of science have long tried to identify some demarcation line capable of distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Nonetheless, no ultimate set of requirements has so far been achieved, leaving demarcation uncertain and fluctuating, if not merely rhetorical. The habit of using the word 'science' to address a specific kind of knowledge is a modern practice, with 'science' having gradually taken over terms like 'natural philosophy' and 'natural history.' Thereby, the term 'pseudoscience' is also a recent one, with its meaning running alongside scientific endeavors of the nineteenth century. The article contributes to the debate aiming to pragmatically describe the function of pseudoscience in epistemology. To account for this, we argue that questions like What is pseudoscience? or What makes science science? would be better replaced by the question What do people do with the word pseudoscience?
In: Social work in public health, Band 35, Heft 5, S. 321-333
ISSN: 1937-190X
""Science is a way of thinking about and investigating the accuracy of assumptions about the world. It is a process for solving problems in which we learn from our mistakes. Social work has a long history of social reform and helping others - let's continue this by paying attention to the important message of this book."":. Eileen Gambrill, School of Social Welfare, University of California at Berkeley (from the Foreword). While many psychosocial interventions used in social work practice have strong research evidence supporting their efficacy, a surprising number do not, potentially resulting