In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (2013)
AbstractEver 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).
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
References found in this work
No references found.
Citations of this work
Hauntings, Homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: Using Pseudoscience to Teach Scientific Thinking.Rodney Schmaltz & Scott O. Lilienfeld - 2014 - Frontiers in Psychology 5.
Cementing Science. Understanding Science Through Its Development.Veli Virmajoki - 2019 - Dissertation, University of Turku
W. W. Bartley: Reconsidering the Problem of Demarcation Between Science and Metaphysics.Vendula Kovářová - 2016 - E-Logos 23 (2):10-26.
Similar books and articles
The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan.Massimo Pigliucci - 2013 - In Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University of Chicago Press. pp. 9.
Pseudoscience.Massimo Pigliucci - 2013 - In Byron Kaldis (ed.), Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the Social Sciences. SAGE.
Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem.Massimo Pigliucci & Maarten Boudry (eds.) - 2013 - University of Chicago Press.
Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science From Bunk.Massimo Pigliucci - 2010 - University of Chicago Press.
Has Laudan Killed the Demarcation Problem?Kirsten Walsh - 2009 - Dissertation, University of Melbourne
Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation.Sven Ove Hansson - 2009 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):237-243.
Can’T Philosophers Tell the Difference Between Science and Religion?: Demarcation Revisited.Robert Pennock - 2011 - Synthese 178 (2):177-206.
A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem.B. D. - 2000 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (2):249-267.
Popper's Paradoxical Pursuit of Natural Philosophy.Nicholas Maxwell - 2016 - In J. Shearmur & G. Stokes (eds.), Cambridge Companion to Popper. Cambridge University Press. pp. 170-207.
Parapsychology and the Demarcation Problem.Robert L. Morris - 1987 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 30 (3):241 – 251.
Between Autobiography and Reality: Popper's Inductive Years.M. Hark - 2002 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33 (1):75-100.
Methodology, Epistemology and Conventions: Popper's Bad Start.John Preston - 1994 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1994:314 - 322.
The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science.A. A. Derksen - 1993 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 24 (1):17 - 42.
Ducks, Rabbits, and Normal Science: Recasting the Kuhn’s-Eye View of Popper’s Demarcation of Science.Deborah G. Mayo - 1996 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47 (2):271-290.