What’s so bad about scientism?

References

• Alexander, J. 2010. “Is Experimental Philosophy Philosophically Significant?” Philosophical Psychology 23 (3): 377–389.10.1080/09515089.2010.490943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baggini, J., and J. Stangroom. 2005. “Introduction.” In What Philosophers Think, edited by J. Baggini and J. Stangroom, 1–10. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Beebe, J. R. 2009. “The Abductivist Reply to Skepticism.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (3): 605–636.10.1111/phpr.2009.79.issue-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2007. “What is Scientific Progress?” Noûs 41 (1): 64–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2008. “Scientific Progress as Accumulation of Knowledge: A Reply to Rowbottom.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 39 (2): 279–281.10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.03.019
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bornmann, L., and Mutz, R. 2014. “Growth Rates of Modern Science: A Bibliometric Analysis Based on the Number of Publications and Cited References.” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. Accessed September 23, 2015. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4578
   Google Scholar
• Bostrom, N. 2013. “Existential Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy 4 (1): 15–31.10.1111/1758-5899.12002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bourget, D., and D. Chalmers. 2014. “What Do Philosophers Believe?” Philosophical Studies 170 (3): 465–500.10.1007/s11098-013-0259-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burns, W. C. G., and A. L. Strauss. 2013. Climate Change Geoengineering: Philosophical Perspective, Legal Issues and Governance Frameworks. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139161824
   Google Scholar
• Busch, J. 2008. “No New Miracles Same Old Tricks.” Theoria 74 (2): 102–114.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carroll, L. 1895. “What the Tortoise Said to Achilles.” Mind 4 (14): 278–280.10.1093/mind/IV.14.278
   Google Scholar
• Chalmers, D. J. 2011. “Verbal Disputes.” Philosophical Review 120 (4): 515–566.10.1215/00318108-1334478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cleland, C. E. 2013. “Common Cause Explanation and the Search for a Smoking Gun.” In Rethinking the Fabric of Geology, edited by V. R. Baker, 1–10. Boulder, CO: The Geological Society of America.10.1130/9780813725024
   Google Scholar
• Cole, S., and J. W. Lindemann. 1990. Reading and Responding to Literature. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.
   Google Scholar
• Cowburn, J. 2013. Scientism: A Word We Need. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2000. “Inductive Risk and Values in Science.” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559–579.10.1086/392855
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douglas, H. 2009. Science, Policy, and the Value-free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Douglas, H., and P. D. Magnus. 2013. “State of the Field: Why Novel Prediction Matters.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 44 (4): 580–589.10.1016/j.shpsa.2013.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douven, I. 2011. “Abduction.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2011 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2011/entries/abduction/.
   Google Scholar
• Frost-Arnold, G. 2010. “The No-miracles Argument for Realism: An Inference to an Unacceptable Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 77 (1): 35–58.10.1086/650207
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford, M. B. 2013. “Skepticism and Elegance: Problems for the Abductive Reply to Cartesian Skepticism.” Philosophical Studies 164 (3): 685–704.10.1007/s11098-012-9879-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Govier, T. 2014. A Practical Study of Argument. Enhanced. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Haack, S. 2007. Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Amherst: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hawking, S., and L. Mlodinow. 2010. The Grand Design. New York: Bantam Books.
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. 1951. “The Concept of Cognitive Significance: A Reconsideration.” Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 80 (1): 61–77.10.2307/20023635
   Google Scholar
• Henry, S. G. 2010. “Polanyi’s Tacit Knowing and the Relevance of Epistemology to Clinical Medicine.” Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2): 292–297.10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01387.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hua, S. 1995. Scientism and Humanism: Two Cultures in Post-Mao China (1978–1989). Albany: SUNY Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hughes, A. L. 2012. “The Folly of Scientism.” The New Atlantis 37: 32–50.
   Google Scholar
• Hurley, P. J. 2015. A Concise Introduction to Logic. 12th ed. Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Jenkins, C. S. I. 2014. “Intuition, ‘Intuition’, Concepts and the A Priori.” In Intuitions, edited by A. R. Booth and D. P. Rowbottom, 91–115. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199609192.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, I. J. 2016. “How Should Feyerabend Have Defended Astrology? A Reply to Pigliucci.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5 (6): 11–17.
   Google Scholar
• Kidd, I. J. Forthcoming. “Is Scientism Epistemically Vicious?” In Scientism: Prospects and Problems, edited by R. Peels and R. van Woudenberg. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kincaid, H., J. Dupré, and A. Wylie, eds. 2007. Value-Free Science? Ideals and Illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1998. “A Plea for Science Studies.” In A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths about Science, edited by N. Koertge, 32–55. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 2000. “Afterwords.” In The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by J. Conant and J. Haugeland, 224–252. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladyman, J. 2002. Understanding Philosophy of Science. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203463680
   Google Scholar
• Ladyman, J. 2011. “The Scientistic Stance: The Empirical and Materialist Stances Reconciled.” Synthese 178 (1): 87–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladyman, L., D. Ross, D. Spurrett, and J. Collier. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276196.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1981. “A Confutation of Convergent Realism.” Philosophy of Science 48 (1): 19–49.10.1086/288975
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lauer, Q. 1989. The Nature of Philosophical Inquiry. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Leplin, J. 1997. A Novel Defense of Scientific Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, C. I., and C. H. Langford. 1932. Symbolic Logic. London: The Century Company.
   Google Scholar
• Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Longino, H. E. 1995. “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues.” Synthese 104 (3): 383–397.10.1007/BF01064506
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loughlin, M., G. Lewith, and T. Falkenberg. 2013. “Science, Practice and Mythology: A Definition and Examination of the Implications of Scientism in Medicine.” Health Care Analysis 21 (2): 130–145.10.1007/s10728-012-0211-6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lycan, W. G. 1994. “Reply to Hilary Kornblith.” Philosophical Studies 76 (2/3): 259–261.10.1007/BF00989829
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macagno, F., and D. Walton. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139565776
   Google Scholar
• Marinoff, L. 1999. Plato, Not Prozac! Applying Eternal Wisdom to Everyday Problems. New York: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• McMullin, E. 2013. “The Inference That Makes Science.” Zygon 48 (1): 143–191.10.1111/zygo.2013.48.issue-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M. 2012. “Why the Ultimate Argument for Scientific Realism Ultimately Fails.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43 (1): 132–138.10.1016/j.shpsa.2011.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M. 2013a. “Why Hypothetical Syllogism is Invalid for Indicative Conditionals.” Thought 2 (1): 40–43.
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M. 2013b. “The Pessimistic Induction: A Bad Argument Gone Too Far.” Synthese 190 (15): 3209–3226.10.1007/s11229-012-0138-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M., and W. Buckwalter. 2014. “The Role of Justification in the Ordinary Concept of Scientific Progress.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 45 (1): 151–166.10.1007/s10838-014-9243-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niiniluoto, I. 2014. “Scientific Progress as Increasing Verisimilitude.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 75: 73–77.10.1016/j.shpsa.2014.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peels, R. 2016. “The Empirical Case Against Introspection.” Philosophical Studies 173 (9): 2461–2485.10.1007/s11098-016-0623-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pigliucci, M. 2010. Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226667874.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Pigliucci, M. 2012. “Science Needs Philosophy.” New Humanist. July 19. Accessed September 25, 2015. https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2843/science-needs-philosophy
   Google Scholar
• Priest, G. 2004. “What’s So Bad About Contradictions?” In The Law of Non-contradiction: New Philosophical Essays, edited by G. Priest, J. C. Beall and B. Armour-Garb, 23–38. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199265176.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 2007. “The Fine Structure of Inference to the Best Explanation.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (2): 441–448.10.1111/phpr.2007.74.issue-2
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 2011. “The Scope and Limits of the No Miracles Argument.” In Explanation, Prediction, and Confirmation, edited by D. Dieks, W. J. Gonzalez, S. Hartmann, T. Uebel, and M. Weber, 23–35. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-007-1180-8
   Google Scholar
• Remler, D. 2014. “Are 90% of Academic Papers Really Never Cited? Reviewing the Literature on Academic Citations.” The Impact Blog. Accessed September 23, 2015. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/23/academic-papers-citation-rates-remler
   Google Scholar
• de Ridder, J. 2014. “Science and Scientism in Popular Science Writing.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 3 (12): 23–39.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, A. 2011. The Atheist’s Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions. New York: W. W. Norton.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, A. 2015. “Disenchanted Naturalism.” Kritikos 12 (Jan.–Apr.) http://intertheory.org/rosenberg.htm.
   Google Scholar
• Rowbottom, D. 2008. “N-Rays and the Semantic View of Scientific Progress.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 39 (2): 277–278.10.1016/j.shpsa.2008.03.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rowbottom, D. 2010. “What Scientific Progress is Not: Against Bird’s Epistemic View.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 24 (3): 241–255.10.1080/02698595.2010.522407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salmon, M. H. 2013. Introduction to Logic and Critical Thinking. 6th ed. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Schurz, G., and K. Lambert. 1994. “Outline of a Theory of Scientific Understanding.” Synthese 101 (1): 65–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SCImago. 2007. SJR – SCImago Journal & Country Rank. Accessed September 30, 2015 http://www.scimagojr.com
   Google Scholar
• Sorell, T. 2013. Scientism: Philosophy and the Infatuation with Science. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Sparshott, F. 1998. The Future of Aesthetics: The 1996 Ryle Lectures. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.10.3138/9781442681316
   Google Scholar
• Stanford, P. K. 2016. “Naturalism without Scientism.” In The Blackwell Companion to Naturalism, edited by K. J. Clark, 91–108. Malden, MA: Wiley.10.1002/9781118657775
   Google Scholar
• Sytsma, J., and J. Livengood. 2016. The Theory and Practice of Experimental Philosophy. Ontario: Broadview Press.
   Google Scholar
• Van Noorden, R. 2014. “Global Scientific Output Doubles Every Nine Years.” Nature News Blog, May 7. Accessed September 25, 2015. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2014/05/global-scientific-output-doubles-every-nine-years.html
   Google Scholar
• Volger, C. 2007. The Writer’s Journey: Mythic Structure for Writers. 3rd ed. Studio City, CA: Michael Wiese Productions.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel, J. 2009. “Internalist Responses to Skepticism.” In The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, edited by J. Greco, 533–556. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weinberg, S. 1994. Dreams of a Final Theory: The Scientist’s Search for the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• Wilholt, T. 2013. “Epistemic Trust in Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2): 233–253.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, R. N. 2015. “Introduction.” In Scientism: The New Orthodoxy, edited by R. N. Williams and D. N. Robinson, 1–22. New York: Bloomsbury.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J. 2014. “Scientific Explanation.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/scientific-explanation/.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2007. “A Selectionist Explanation for the Success and Failures of Science.” Erkenntnis 67 (1): 81–89.10.1007/s10670-007-9046-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2010. “Selection and Predictive Success.” Erkenntnis 72 (3): 365–377.10.1007/s10670-009-9206-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar