Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Advancing the debate on the consequences of misinformation: clarifying why it’s not (just) about false beliefs.Maarten van Doorn - 2023 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 1.
    The debate on whether and why misinformation is bad primarily focuses on the spread of false beliefs as its main harm. From the assumption that misinformation primarily causes harm through the spread of false beliefs as a starting point, it has been contended that the problem of misinformation has been exaggerated. Its tendency to generate false beliefs appears to be limited. However, the near-exclusive focus on whether or not misinformation dupes people with false beliefs neglects other epistemic harms associated with (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Věda, pseudověda a paravěda.Filip Tvrdý - 2020 - E-Logos 27 (2):4-17.
    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 (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Taking responsibility for health in an epistemically polluted environment.Neil Levy - 2018 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 39 (2):123-141.
    Proposals for regulating or nudging healthy choices are controversial. Opponents often argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own health, rather than be paternalistically manipulated for their own good. In this paper, I argue that people can take responsibility for their own health only if they satisfy certain epistemic conditions, but we live in an epistemic environment in which these conditions are not satisfied. Satisfying the epistemic conditions for taking responsibility, I argue, requires regulation of this environment. I describe (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   10 citations  
  • Are Pseudosciences Like Seagulls? A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem.Angelo Fasce - 2019 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32 (3):155-175.
    Interest in the demarcation problem is undergoing a boom after being shelved and even given up for dead. Nevertheless, despite current philosophical discussions, there are no substantial advances i...
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  • Pseudoscience as a Negative Outcome of Scientific Dialogue: A Pragmatic-Naturalistic Approach to the Demarcation Problem.Stefaan Blancke & Maarten Boudry - 2022 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 34 (3):183-198.
    The demarcation between science and pseudoscience is a long-standing problem in philosophy of science. Although philosophers have been hesitant to engage in this project since Larry Laudan announce...
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations