Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem 1st Edition, Kindle Edition
Use the Amazon App to scan ISBNs and compare prices.
- Highlight, take notes, and search in the book
- Page numbers are just like the physical edition
- Create digital flashcards instantly
See the Best Books of 2018 So Far
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for the best books of the year so far in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.
Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Would you like to tell us about a lower price?
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Popper, so it is argued, erred when he tried for a single criteria demarcation. The first few essays try to rescue Popper's project from Laudan's 1983 criticism. I can only call it that because neither the Popper papper nor Laudan's grace this volume - not too much of a problem for an academic with access to the supplementary material, but trying to figure out Laudan's criticisms on the fly is the task confronting the layman in the early chapters.
One of the things that surprised me was that the focus of the demarcation problem isn't so much an academic issue as it is a cultural one - while there's the issue of what's funded and what's worthy of study in the scientific community, largely the problem is for non-experts to recognise the difference between science and non-science. One interesting essay was by the philosopher Jean Paul Van Bendegem who argued for the ethical imperative to fight pseudoscientific rhetoric by turning it back on them.
Aside from Van Bendegem's essay, other highlights included Maarten Boudry's essay on the boundaries of demarcation, Barbara Forrest's essay on how Hume's ideas apply to the problem, John Wilkins' essay on the rationality of pseudoscientific beliefs, Konrad Talmont-Kaminski's essay on the same subject, and Filip Buekens' essay on the prevalence agency-based thinking. All the essays were worth reading, even if a couple of essays tended to be heavy on the jargon.
The 23 essays included in this volume are very interesting in their treatment of the many aspects of this philosophical inquiry, but might be most suited to the serious student of philosophy. There is some serious food for thought here, but the casual reader might find the going heavy at times. For maximum enjoyment the reader should bring a broad vocabulary and an unabridged dictionary to the table, but will enjoy the rewards of the effort.
With diligence and unwonted effort, I did read the whole book. It helps to be familiar with the language of Philosophy. For example, the words Normative, Descriptive, and Methodological evidently have precise definitions in academic Philosophy. With my pre-existing bias favoring Pigliucci's and Michael Shermer's views on Demarcation, I found most of the remaining authors more interesting for their style than their substance.
So no, I'm not a reader of the whole book, I'm only evaluating preface and table of contents.