ON THE QUESTION OF STRUCTURE OF PSEUDOSCIENCE: PSEUDOSCIENCE AS DEVIANT INTERPRETATION

Publication Type:

Language:

Transliteration of original Title: 
K voprosu o strukture psevdonauki: psevdonauka kak deviantnaya interpretatsiya
Author(s): 
Alexey Konopkin
Department of Philosophy, Ulyanovsk State Pedagogical University
Issue number: 
No. 1 (Vol. 39)
Pages: 
152-172
Abstract: 

The article focuses on the structure of pseudoscience as deviant interpretation of the data that has specific cognitive symptoms: undefined scope, the limited evidence base, self-contradictory, unreliable assumptions, etc. Discusses the differences and similarities of pseudoscience and hypotheses as forms of knowledge (rationality, consistency, the possibility of a critical revision, etc.). Proposes criteria for delineation of pseudoscience and false-science, anti-science, para-science, quasi-science, folk science. The property of systematic of scientific knowledge analyzes in article, where theories and hypotheses support each other, the isolation of a recognized theory is seen as a sign of pseudoscience. Argued the possibility of determining the validity of the hypothesis of «here and now» in a mature science and incorrect analysis of pseudoscience as developing «research programs» (I. Lakatos) using complex analysis not only of the hypothesis itself , but also its subsidiary assumptions consequences. Ambiguous examples, such as the cosmological and psychological theories, “dark matter”, theory of "torsion fields"  are analyzed in the context of the proposed approach to the definition of pseudoscience as a transitional form of knowledge as deviant interpretation necessarily false.

Keywords: 
pseudoscience, hypothesis, scientific criteria, systematic, astrology, biorhythms theory, «research programs», I. Lakatos
References: 

Boudry M., Braeckman J. Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms. Philosophia. 2011 (39). p. 145-161.

Brumfiel G. Physicists declare victory in Higgs hunt. Nature. 2012. Available at: http.//www.nature.com/news/physicists-declare-victory-in-higgs-hunt-1.10940/.

Bryanik N.V. Osobennosti eksperimenta «neklassicheskoy» nauki. Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki. 2012. no.1. pp. 108-124.

Bunge M. Filosofiya fiziki (Philosophy of physics). Moscow, Progress, 1975. 347 p.

Bunge M. Knowledge. Genuine and Bogus. Science & Education. 2011 (20). p. 411-438.

Conn J.H. Is Psychoanalysis Alive and Well at 85? A Rejoinder Pav. J. Biol. Science. 1980 no.3 (15). p. 131-134.

Derksen A. A. Seven Sins of Pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science. 1993 (24). p. 17-42.

Dynich V.I. [et al.]. Vnenauchnoe znanie i sovremennyy krizis nauchnogo mirovozzreniya. Voprosy filosofii. 1994. no. 12. p.122-134.

Flek L. Vozniknovenie i razvitie nauchnogo fakta (Origins and development of scientific fact). Moscow, 1999. 220 p.

Frey U. Cognitive Foundations Of Religiosity. E. Voland, W. Schiefenhovel (eds), The Biologocal Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior. The Frontiers Collection. Berlin. Springer-Verlag. 2009. p. 229-241.

Gilovich T. How we know what isn’t so. The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York. Free press. 1991. 224 p.

Grove J.W. Rationality at Risk. Science against Pseudoscience. Minerva. 1985 (23). p. 216-240.

Hansson S. O. Defining Pseudoscience. Philosophia Naturalis. 1996. no. 33. р. 169-176.

Hansson S.O. Falsificationism Falsified. Foundations of science. 2006. no.11. p. 275-286.

Hansson S.O. Science and pseudoscience (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). 2008 . Available at: http.//plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo–science/.

Illarionov S.V. Teoriya poznaniya i filosofiya nauki. Moscow, 2007. 535 p.

Keil F. C. Folkscience. coarse interpretation of complex reality. Cognitive Sciences. 2003. vol.7. no.8. P. 368-373.

Kholton Dzh. What is antiscience? (Chto takoe antinauka?) Voprosy filosofii. 1992, no.2. p. 26-58.

Kipnis N. Errors in Science and their Treatment in Teaching Science Science & Education. 2011. no.7-8. vol. 20. p. 655-685.

Kipnis N. Errors in Science and their Treatment in Teaching Science Science & Education. 2011. no.7-8. vol. 20. p. 655-685.

Kipnis N. Errors in Science and their Treatment in Teaching Science Science and Education. 2011. no.7-8 (20). p. 655-685.

Lakatos I. Izbrannye proizvedeniya po filosofii i metodologii nauki (Selected words in philosophy and methodology of science). Moscow, 2008. 475 p.

Laudan L. The Demise of Demarcation Problem Cohen, R.S.; Laudan, L., Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (76). Kluwer Academic Publishers. 1983. p. 111-127.

Lugg A. Pseudoscience as nonsense. Methodology and Science. 1992 (25). p. 221-230.

Martin B. Scientific fraud and the power structure of science. Prometheus. 1992. no.10(1). p. 83-98.

Martishina N.I. Nauka i paranauka v dukhovnoy zhizni sovremennogo cheloveka. Omsk, 1997. 178 p.

Pennock T.R. Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?. Demarcation revisited. Synthese. 2011. no.3. p. 177-206.

Rossiyanov K.O. Stalin kak redaktor Lysenko. K predystorii avgustovskoy (1948 g.) sessii VASKhNIL. Voprosy filosofii. 1993. no. 2. p. 56-69.

Sun Si. A critique of relativism in the sociology of scientific knowledge. Front. Philos. China. 2007. no.2(1) p. 115-130.

Thagard P. Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. 1978 (1). p. 223-234.

Vol'kenshteyn M.V. Traktat o lzhenauke. Khimiya i zhizn' (Tractatus on pseudo-science). 1975. no.10. p. 73-79.

Yurevich A.V. Science and market (Nauka i rynok). Obshchestvennye nauki i sovremennost' (Social sciences and modernity). 1999, no.1. p. 29-38.

Full Text: