Are Pseudosciences Like Seagulls? A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem

References

• Andersen, H. 2000. “Kuhn’s Account of Family Resemblance: A Solution to the Problem of Wide-Open Texture.” Erkenntnis 52: 313–337.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baker, G., and P. Hacker. 1984. Scepticism, Rules and Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Beyerstein, B. 1995. Distinguising Science from Pseudoscience. Accessed June 1, 2019. http://www.sld.cu/galerias/pdf/sitios/revsalud/beyerstein_cience_vs_pseudoscience.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Blancke, S., M. Boudry, and M. Pigliucci. 2017. “Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience.” Theoria 83 (1): 78–97.
   Google Scholar
• Boghossian, P. 2006. Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boudry, M. 2013. “Loki’s Wager and Laudan’s Error: On Genuine and Territorial Demarcation.” In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 79–100. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boudry, M., S. Blancke, and J. Braeckman. 2010. “Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look Into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 85 (4): 473–482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bunge, M. 1982. “Demarcating Science From Pseudoscience.” Fundamenta Scientiae 3: 369–388.
   Google Scholar
• Bunge, M. 2016. Between two Worlds: Memoirs of a Philosopher-Scientist. Cham: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, T., L. Black, B. Stussman, P. Barnes, and R. Nahin. 2015. “Trends in the Use of Complementary Health Approaches Among Adults: United States, 2002–2012.” National Health Statistics Reports 10 (79): 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Coliva, A. 2010. “Was Wittgenstein an Epistemic Relativist?” Philosophical Investigations 33 (1): 1–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crayford, J. 1997. The Radical Reading of Wittgenstein: Cavell, Kripke, and Bloor as a School of Wittgenstein Readers. Evanston: Northwestern University.
   Google Scholar
• Dawes, G. 2018. “Identifying Pseudoscience: A Social Process Criterion.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 49 (8): 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• de Regt, H. 2017. Understanding Scientific Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dupré, J. 1993. The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst, E. 2010. “Bach Flower Remedies: A Systematic Review of Randomised Clinical Trials.” Swiss Medical Weekly 140: w13079.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ernst, E., M. Lee, and T. Choi. 2011. “Acupuncture: Does it Alleviate Pain and are There Serious Risks? A Review of Reviews.” Pain 152 (4): 755–764.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fagan, G. 2006. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Fasce, A. 2017. “Los parásitos de la ciencia. Una caracterización psicocognitiva del engaño pseudocientífico.” Theoria. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 32 (3): 347–365.
   Google Scholar
• Fasce, A. 2018. “What Do We Mean When We Speak of Pseudoscience? The Development of a Demarcation Criterion Based on the Analysis of Twenty-one Previous Attempts.” Disputatio. Philosophical Research Bulletin 6 (7): 459–488.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasce, A., and J. Adrián-Ventura. 2020. “Conceptual Elucidation and Epidemiological Framework.” Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, accepted manuscript.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasce, A., J. Adrián-Ventura, and D. Avendaño. 2020. “Do as the Romans Do: On the Authoritarian Roots of Pseudoscience.” Public Understanding of Science, accepted manuscript.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasce, A. Forthcoming. “The Explanation-Polarisation Model: Pseudoscience Spreads through Explanatory Satisfaction and Motivated Reasoning.”
   Google Scholar
• Fasce, A., and A. Picó. 2019a. “Conceptual Foundations and Validation of the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 33 (4): 617–628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fasce, A., and A. Picó. 2019b. “Science as a Vaccine. The Relation between Scientific Literacy and Unwarranted Beliefs.” Science & Education 28 (1–2): 109–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrest, B., and P. Gross. 2004. Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fried, E. 2017. “What are Psychological Constructs? On the Nature and Statistical Modelling of Emotions, Intelligence, Personality Traits and Mental Disorders.” Health Psychology Review 11 (2): 130–134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrett, B., and R. Cutting. 2017. “Magical Beliefs and Discriminating Science From Pseudoscience in Undergraduate Professional Students.” Heliyon 3 (11): e00433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Givón, T. 1986. “Prototypes: Between Plato and Wittgenstein.” In Noun Classes and Categorization, edited by C. Craig, 77–102. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Gruenberger, F. [1962] 1964. “A Measure for Crackpots.” Science 25: 1413–1415.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 1991. “Is Anthroposophy Science?” Conceptus: Zeitschrift Fur Philosophie 25 (64): 37–49.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2009. “Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3): 237–243.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2013. “Defining Pseudoscience and Science.” In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by M. Pigliucci and M. Boudry, 61–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hansson, S. O. 2017. “Science and Pseudo-Science.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. Zalta. Accessed June 1, 2019. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/.
   Google Scholar
• Hemsley, B., L. Bryant, R. W. Schlosser, H. C. Shane, R. Lang, D. Paul, et al. 2018. “Systematic Review of Facilitated Communication 2014–2018 Finds no new Evidence That Messages Delivered Using Facilitated Communication are Authored by the Person with Disability.” Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 3: 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Herbert, J., S. Lilienfeld, J. Lohr, R. Montgomery, W. O'Donohue, G. Rosen, and D. Tolin. 2000. “Science and Pseudoscience in the Development of eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing: Implications for Clinical Psychology.” Clinical Psychology Review 20 (8): 945–971.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, D. 1965. “The Effect of Essentialism on Taxonomy—Two Thousand Years of Stasis.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 16: 314–326.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, D., J. Irwin, and T. Price. 2001. “Ring Species as Bridges Between Microevolution and Especiation.” Genetica 112 (113): 223–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Irzik, G., and R. Nola. 2011. “A Family Resemblance Approach to the Nature of Science for Science Education.” Science & Education 20 (7-8): 591–607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1982. Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klee, G. 2005. “The Resurrection of Wilhelm Reich and Orgone Therapy.” The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 4 (1): 6–8.
   Google Scholar
• Kolchinsky, E., U. Kutschera, U. Hossfeld, and G. Levit. 2017. “Russia’s new Lysenkoism.” Current Biology 27 (19): R1042–R1047.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. 1982. Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language: An Elementary Exposition. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Kruger, J., and D. Dunning. 1999. “Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1121–1134.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladyman, J. 2013. “Toward a Demarcation of Science From Pseudoscience.” In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 45–60. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1978a. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1978b. Mathematics, Science, and Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laudan, L. 1983. “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem.” In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis. Essays in Honour of Adolf Grünbaum, edited by R. Cohen, and L. Laudan, 111–127. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Letrud, K. 2019. “The Gordian Knot of Demarcation: Tying Up Some Loose Ends.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 32 (1): 3–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S., R. Ammirati, and M. David. 2012. “Distinguishing Science From Pseudoscience in School Psychology: Science and Scientific Thinking as Safeguards Against Human Error.” Journal of School Psychology 50 (1): 7–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S., S. Lynn, and J. Lohr. 2003. Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lilienfeld, S., J. Wood, and H. Garb. 2000. “The Scientific Status of Projective Techniques.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 1 (2): 27–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lugg, A. 1987. “Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem.” Dialectica 41: 221–230.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahner, M. 2013. “Science and Pseudoscience. How to Demarcate After the (Alleged) Demise of the Demarcation Problem.” In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 29–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• MSPSI. 2011. Informe sobre uso de medicina natural en España. Accessed October 27, 2019 https://www.mscbs.gob.es/novedades/docs/analisisSituacionTNatu.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mulet, J. M. 2018. “The Appeal-to-Nature Fallacy. Homeopathy and Biodynamic Agriculture in Official EU Regulations.” Mètode Science Studies Journal 95: 173–179.
   Google Scholar
• Paludi, M., and S. Haley. 2014. “Scientific Racism.” In Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology, edited by T. Teo, 1697–1700. Berlín: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, D. 2003. “Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics.” In The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, edited by J. Hodge, and G. Radick, 214–239. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pigliucci, M. 2003. “Species as Family Resemblance Concepts: The (Dis-)Solution of the Species Problem?” BioEssays 25: 596–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pigliucci, M. 2013. “A (Belated) Response to Laudan.” In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, edited by M. Pigliucci, and M. Boudry, 9–28. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pompa, L. 1967. “Family Resemblance.” The Philosophical Quarterly 17 (66): 63–69.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• RationalWiki. 2019. List of pseudosciences. Accessed October 27, 2019. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_pseudosciences.
   Google Scholar
• Richman, R. 1962. “Something Common.” The Journal of Philosophy 59 (26): 821–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozenblit, L., and F. Keil. 2002. “The Misunderstood Limits of Folk Science: An Illusion of Explanatory Depth.” Cognitive Science 26: 521–562.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, J., L. Hiller, R. Nieto-Hernandez, E. van Rongen, and G. Oftedal. 2011. “Do People with Idiopathic Environmental Intolerance Attributed to Electromagnetic Fields Display Physiological Effects When Exposed to Electromagnetic Fields? A Systematic Review of Provocation Studies.” Bioelectromagnetics 32: 593–609.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruse, M. 1982. “Creation-Science is Not Science.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 7 (40): 72–78.
   Google Scholar
• Schindler, S. Forthcoming. Pseudo-solutions to the Demarcation Problem.
   Google Scholar
• Shermer, M. 2002. Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. Santa Bárbara: ABC-CLIO.
   Google Scholar
• Smolin, L. 2007. The Trouble with Physics. Boston: Mariner Books.
   Google Scholar
• Snook, B. 2008. “Pseudoscientific Policing Practices and Beliefs [Special Issue].” Criminal Justice and Behavior 35 (10): 1211–1214.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Swami, V., T. Chamorro-Premuzic, and A. Furnham. 2010. “Unanswered Questions: A Preliminary Investigation of Personality and Individual Difference Predictors of 9/11 Conspiracy Beliefs.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 24: 749–761.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tabacchi, M., and M. Cardaci. 2016. “Preferential Biases for Texts That Include Neuroscientific Jargon.” Psychological Reports 118 (3): 793–803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Templeton, A. 1992. “The Meaning of Species and Speciation: A Genetic Perspective.” In The Units of Evolution: Essays on the Nature of Species, edited by M. Ereshefsky, 3–27. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thagard, P. 1988. Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson, P. 1980. “Is Sociobiology a Pseudoscience?” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, edited by P. Asquith and R. Giere, 363–370. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Torcello, L. 2016. “The Ethics of Belief, Cognition, and Climate Change Pseudoskepticism: Implications for Public Discourse.” Topics in Cognitive Science 8 (1): 19–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torcello, L. 2020. “La democracia y los límites de la razón: por qué es necesaria una defensa continuada de los compromisos liberales para contrarrestar la desinformación y la xenofobia.” Disputatio, Philosophical Research Bulletin. In press.
   Google Scholar
• Torres, M., I. Barberia, and J. Rodríguez-Ferreiro. 2020. “Causal Illusion as a Cognitive Basis of Pseudoscientific Beliefs.” British Journal of Psychology, doi:10.1111/bjop.12441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1972. Human Understanding. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Toulmin, S. 1984. “The new Philosophy of Science and the “Paranormal”.” Skeptical Inquirer 9: 48–55.
   Google Scholar
• van der Linden, S., A. Leiserowitz, G. Feinberg, and E. Maibach. 2015. “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change as a Gateway Belief: Experimental Evidence.” PLoS ONE 10 (2): e0118489.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wikipedia. 2019. List of Topics Characterized as Pseudoscience. Accessed October 27, 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, M. 2007. “Why Wittgensteinian Contextualism is not Relativism.” Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology 4 (1): 93–114.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, F. 2000. The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wittgenstein, L. 1958. Philosophical Investigations. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Woit, P. 2007. Not Even Wrong. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar