Pseudoscience: Objective or Subjective?
Abstract
What is pseudo-science and when do charges of pseudo-scientific thinking generally arise? These questions are answered by looking at six examples where the charge of pseudo-science has arisen: anti-vaccination and the claims that it causes illnesses, Creationism – the claim that the Bible is literally true –, chiropractic and claims about curing cancer and the like, pre-Darwinian evolution, that is developmental hypotheses before the Origin of Species (1859), Immanuel Velikovsky and his book, Worlds in Collision, and the Gaia hypothesis that the Earth is an organism. It is agreed that there is an objective foundation to charges of pseudo-science and the author’s testimony in a court case in Arkansas in 1981, arguing that Creationism is not genuine science, is used to support this claim. Karl Popper’s criterion of demarcation invoking falsifiability is a key notion here. However, it is argued that charges of pseudo-science occur most frequently when conventional practitioners are under threat. Then claims of pseudo-science are used to attack the non-conventional opposition. The examples are used to support this conclusion.
References
Argyll, Duke of (1867). The Reign of Law. London: Alexander Strahan.
Brewster, David (1844). “Vestiges”. North British Review no. 3, pp. 470-515.
Chambers, Robert (1844). Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. London: Churchill.
Chambers, Robert (1846). Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Fifth Edition. 5th ed. London: J. Churchill.
Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. London: John Murray.
Darwin, Erasmus [1794-1796](1801). Zoonomia; or, The Laws of Organic Life. 3rd ed. London: J. Johnson.
Darwin, Erasmus (1803). The Temple of Nature. London: J. Johnson.
Dawkins, Richard 1982. The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. Oxford: W.H. Freeman.
Doolittle, W. Ford (1981). “Is nature really motherly?” CoEvolution 29: pp. 58-62.
Eldredge, Niles and Gould Steven Jay (1972). “Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism”. In: Models in Paleobiology. Editor T. J. M. Schopf, pp. 82-115. San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper.
Gordin, Michael D. (2012a). “How Lysenkoism Became Pseudoscience: Dobzhansky to Velikovsky”. Journal of the History of Biology, 45: pp. 443-468.
Gordin, Michael D. (2012b). The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1854). “Vestiges, etc.” British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 13: pp. 425-39.
Huxley, Thomas Henry (1887). “Science and Pseudo-Science”. Popular Science Monthly, 31, June.
Lovelock, James E. (1979). Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Margulis, Lynn, and James E. Lovelock (1974). “Biological modulation of the Earth’s atmosphere”. Icarus 21: pp. 471-89.
Naden, Constance (1999). Poetical Works of Constance Naden. Kernville, Ca.: High Sierra Books.
Overton, William R. [1982] (1988). “United States District Court Opinion: McLean versus Arkansas”. In: But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Editor M Ruse, pp. 307-331. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
Postgate, John R. (1988). “Gaia gets too big for her boots”. New Scientist , no. April 7: 80.
Provine, William B. (1971). The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ruse, Michael, Editor. (1988). But is it Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus.
Ruse, Michael (1996). Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Ruse, Michael (2013). The Gaia Hypothesis: Science on a Pagan Planet. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sedgwick, Adam (1845). “Vestiges”. Edinburgh Review 82: pp. 1-85.
Sedgwick , Adam (1850). Discourse on the Studies at the University of Cambridge (Fifth Edition). 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Segerstrale, Ullika (2000). Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond. New York: Oxford University Press.
Whewell, W. 1845. Indications of the Creator. London: Parker.
Copyright (c) 2020 Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
