"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have," Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.
"Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), '[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.' These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996) : (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific."Hansson 2008
'"claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation"(p. 17) ' Shermer 1997, (this was the definition adopted by the National Science Foundation).
↑ Cover JA, Curd M (Eds, 1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 1-82.
↑ Hansson, Sven Ove (September 3, 2008). "Science and Pseudo-Science". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. สืบค้นเมื่อ April 16, 2011. From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas.
↑ Magendie, F (1843). An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology. Translated by John Revere (5th ed.). New York: Harper. p. 150. Magendie refers to phrenology as "a pseudo-science of the present day" (note the hyphen).
↑ Casti, John L. (1990). Paradigms lost : tackling the unanswered mysteries of modern science (1st ed. ed.). New York: Avon Books. pp. 51–52. ISBN0-380-71165-6.CS1 maint: Extra text (link)
↑ Paul R. Thagard "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience" in PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1978, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1978), pp. 223-234, The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association 223 ff.
↑ Bunge M (1983) "Demarcating science from pseudoscience" Fundamenta Scientiae 3:369-388
↑ Gauch, H.G. (2003). Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press. p. 88. ISBN9780521017084. LCCN2002022271. A particularly radical reinterpretation of science comes from Paul Feyerabend, "the worst eneny of science"... Like Lakatos, Feyerabend was also a student under Popper. In an interview with Feyerabend in Science, [he says] "Equal weight... should be given to competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupunture, and witchcraft..."
↑ Thagard PR (1978) "Why astrology is a pseudoscience" (1978) In PSA 1978, Volume 1, ed. Asquith PD and Hacking I (East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978) 223 ff. Thagard writes, at 227, 228: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and non confirmations."
↑ Laudan L (1996) "The demise of the demarcation problem" in Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy pp. 337-350.
