HOW ARE PSEUDOSCIENCES POSSIBLE? ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE EVERGREEN PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEM
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202461218Keywords:
science, pseudoscience, “making up sciences”, types of sciences and pseudo-sciences, cognitive and social background of pseudoscienceAbstract
The article has the goal to conceptualize the phenomenon of pseudoscience and its scope at the first quarter of the XXI century expires. The relevance, social and political importance of analyzing this phenomenon both at present and in historical retrospect in terms of studying the problem of demarcation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge emphasized. The existence of different types of scientific, quasi-scientific (deviant, proto-scientific) and non-scientific knowledge (pseudoscience, paranormal science, pseudoscience, shadow science) is pointed out. The expansion of pseudoscientific ideas in recent years, caused by the covid -19 pandemic, as well as by the intensification of other global changes, described. The variety of pseudoscience making up, including pseudo-mathematics and pseudo-logic, described. The necessary attributes of scientific knowledge formulated and we consider pseudoscience as the alter ego of science. Attention drawn to the fact that the belonging of knowledge to pseudoscientific knowledge determined by the methods of obtaining this knowledge. The explanation of constant reproduction of pseudoscientific ideas from the cognitive point of view offered. Confidence is expressed that such ideas will be popular enough and can accompany mankind for a long time, which, however, does not at all reduce the significance of their analysis from the epistemology and philosophy of science perspective.
References
Ballard, J. “Two in Five Americans Say Ghosts Exist”, Yougov.com, 2021 [https://today.yougov.com/entertainment/articles/38919-americans-say-ghosts-exist-seen-a-ghost?redirect_from=%2Ftopics%2Fentertainment%2Farticles-reports%2F2021%2F10%2F21%2Famericans-say-ghosts-exist-seen-a-ghost, accessed on: 28.02.2024]
Bazhanov, V.A. “Fenomen vosproizvodimosti v fokuse epistemologii i filosofii nauki” [Phenomenon of Reproducibility in the Focus of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science], Voprosy filosofii, 2022, no. 5, pp. 25–35. (In Russian)
Bazhanov, V.A. “Osobennosti poznavatel’nykh mekhanizmov v informatsionnuyu epokhu: ‘ekho-puzyri’ i ‘ekho-kamery’” [Features of cognitive mechanisms in the information age: “echo-bubbles” and “echo-chambers”], Filosofskiy zhurnal, 2022, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 152–164. (In Russian)
Bessonov, A.V. “Yeshche raz o nevernykh istolkovaniyakh vtoroy teoremy Godelya o nepolnote [Once Again on Misinterpretations of Godel’s Second Incompleteness Theorem]”, Sibirskiy filosofskiy zhurnal, 2020, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 132–143. (In Russian)
Blancke, S., Edis, T. et al., “Editorial: The Psychology of Pseudoscience”, Frontiers in Psychology, 2022, vol. 13, Article 935645.
Blancke, S., Boudry, M. “Pseudoscience as a Negative Outcome of Scientific Dialogue: A Pragmatic-Naturalistic Approach to the Demarcation Problem”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2021, vol. 32, no. 3–4, pp. 183–198.
Boudry, M. “Plus Ultra: Why Science Does Not Have Limits?”, in: M. Boudry, M. Pigliucci (eds.) Science Unlimited?: The Challenges of Scientism. Chicago, Il.: Chicago University Press, 2018, pp. 31–52.
Brandt, A. The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product that Defined America. New York: Basic books, 2009.
Dudley, U. “What to Do When the Trisector Comes”, The Mathematical Intelligencer, 1983, vol. 5, pp. 20–26.
Fasce, A. “Are Pseudoscience Like Seagulls? A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2019, vol. 32, no. 3–4, pp. 155–175.
Fernandez-Bennato, D. “Feng Shui and the Demarcation Project”, Science and Education, 2021, vol. 30, pp. 1333–1351.
Fleming, S., Frith, C.D., Goodale, M.A. et al. “The Integrated Theory of Consciousness as Pseudoscience”, Preprint at PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zsr78 (2023).
Fuhrer, J., Cova, F. et al. “Pseudoexpertise: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis”, Frontiers in Psychology, 2021, vol. 12, Article 732666.
Gordin, M.D. On the Fringe. Where Science Meets Pseudoscience. Oxford: Oxford University press, 2021.
Hacking, I. “Making up People”, London Review of Books, 2006, vol. 28, no. 16, August 17.
Hacking, I. Istoricheskaya ontologiya [Historical Ontology]. Moscow: Kanon+, 2024. (Trans. into Russian)
Hansson, S.O. “Defining Science and Pseudoscience”, in: M. Pigliucci, M. Boudry (eds.) Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2013, pp. 61–77.
Hansson, S.O. “Disciplines, Doctrines, and Deviant Science”,
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 2020, vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 43–52.
Hansson, S.O. “Science and Pseudo-Science”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/, accessed 16.03.2024.
Hotez, P.J. “Anti-science Kills: Form Soviet Embrace of Pseudoscience to Accelerated Attacks on US Biomedicine”, PLOS Biology, 2021, vol. 19 (1), Article e3001068.
Ivanenko, A.I. “Fenomen pozdnesovetskogo mistitsizma [The Phenomenon of Late Soviet Mysticism]”, Vestnik Severnogo (Arkticheskogo) federal’nogo universiteta. Seriya gumanitarnyye i sotsial’nyye nauki [Bulletin of the Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series of Humanities and Social Sciences], 2021, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 120–129. (In Russian)
Ilyin, V.V. Filosofiya nauki [Philosophy of Science]. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskov. un-ta, 2003. (In Russian)
Kasavin, I.T. Nauka – gumanisticheskiy proyekt [Science as Humanistic Sroject]. Moscow: Ves’ Mir, 2020. (In Russian)
Kezin, A.V. Nauchnost’: etalony, idealy, kriterii [Being Scientific: Standards, Ideals, Criteria]. Moscow: Izd-vo Moskov. un-ta, 1985. (In Russian)
Kruglyakov, E.P. “Uchenyye” s bol’shoy dorogi [“Scientists” From the Highway]. Moscow: Nauka, 2002. (In Russian)
Kuznetsova, N.I., Rozov, M.A., Shreyder, Yu.A. Fenomen issledovaniya – nauka [Phenomenon of Research – Science]. Moscow: Novyy khronograf, 2012. (In Russian)
Lakatos, I. “Introduction: Science and Pseudoscience”, in: Lakatos, I.; J. Worrall; G. Currie (eds.) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University press, 1977, pp. 1–7.
Laudan, L. “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem”, in: Laudan, L. Beyond Positivism and Relativism: Theory, Method and Evidence. Boulder (CO): Westview press, 1983, pp. 210–222.
Lenharo, M. “Consciousness: The Future of Embattled Filed”, Nature, 2024, vol. 625, pp. 438–440.
Levy, N. “Due to Deterrence to Denialism: Explaining Ordinary People’s Rejection of Established Scientific Findings”, Synthese, 2019, vol. 196, pp. 313–327.
List of philosophical problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophical_problems, accessed on 28.02.2014.
List of pseudoscience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience, accessed on 28.02.2014.
Lobato, E., Mendoza, J. et al. “Examining the Relationship Between Conspiracy Theories, Paranormal Beliefs, and Pseudoscience Acceptance Among a University Population”, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2014, vol. 28, pp. 617–625.
Lugg, A. “Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem”, Dialectica, 1987, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 221–230.
Mach, E. “The Guiding Principles of My Scientific Theory of Knowledge and Its Reception by My Contemporaries”, in: S. Toulmin (ed.) Physical Reality: Philosophical Essays on Twentieth-Century Physics. New York: Harper and Row, 1970, pp. 28–43.
Marchionni, C., Zahle, J., Godman, M. “Reactivity in the Human Sciences”, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 2024, vol. 14, article 8, pp. 1–24.
Martishina, N.I. “Fenomen ‘mezhdu’: okolonauchnoye znaniye kak perekhodnyy tip znaniya” [Phenomenon ‘between’: Near-Scientific Knowledge as a Transitional Type of Knowledge], Gumanitarnyye issledovaniya [Humanities Studies], 2020, no. 4 (29), pp. 23–26. (In Russian)
Matthew, M.R. Feng Shui: Teaching about Science and Pseudoscience. Dordrecht: Springer, 2019.
Mukerji, N., Ernst, E. “Why Homeopathy Is Pseudoscience?”, Synthese, 2022, vol. 200, Article 394.
Mueller, B. “Top Cancer Center Seeks to Retract or Correct Dozens of Studies”, New York Times, 2024. January 22. https://www.nytimes.com/ 2024/01/22/health/dana-farber-cancer-studies-retractions.html, accessed on 28.02.2014.
Nanda, M. Prophets Facing Backward. Postmodern Critique of Science and Hindu Nationalism in India. Rutgers University Press, 2003.
Philipp-Muller, A., Lee, S.W., Petty, R.E. “Why Are People Antiscience, And What Can We Do About It?”, PNAS, 2022, vol. 119, No. 30, Article e2120755119.
Pigliucci, M. “The Demarcation Problem. A(Belated) Response”, in: M. Pigliucci, M. Boudry (eds.) Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Chicago University press, 2013, pp. 9–28.
Pigliucci, M. Nonsense on Stilts. 2nd edition. Chicago: Ill., Chicago University press, 2018.
Rosenhouse, J. “How Anti-evolutionists Abuse Mathematics”, The Mathematical Intelligencer, 2001, vol. 23, pp. 3–8.
Sewell, G. “A Mathematician’s View of Evolution”, The Mathematical Intelligencer, 2000, vol. 22, pp. 5–7.
Shermer, M. “Science and Pseudoscience. The Difference in Practice and the Difference It Makes”, in: M. Pigliucci, M. Boudry (eds.) Philosophy of Pseudoscience. Chicago: Chicago University press, 2013, pp. 203–223.
Smallpage, S.M., Askew, R.L. et al. “Conspiracy Thinking and the Long Historical Shadow of Romanticism on Authoritarian Politics”, Frontiers in Psychology, 2023, vol. 14. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1185699.
Steward, G.M. Kaupapa Maori Science. A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education. The University of Waikato, 2007.
Styopin, V.S. Filosofia nauki. Obschie problemy [Philosophy of Science. General Problems]. Moscow: Gardariki, 2006.
Tukhvatulina, L.A. “Nauka kak ob’yekt very i nedoveriya: fenomen denializma” [Science as an Object of Faith and Distrust: The Phenomenon of Denialism], Epistemology & Philosophy of Science, 2023, no. 1, pp. 6–20. (In Russian)
Varga, S. “Medicine as Science. Systematicity and Demarcation”, Synthese, 2021, vol. 199, pp. 3783–3804.
“Ot redaktsii: Misticheskaya Rossiya” [From the Editorial Board: Mystical Russia], Vedomosti. 01.11.2013. (In Russian)
