Pseudoscience

More than any other object of historical and anthropological study, Islamicate occult science cuts to the quick of what it means to be modern, to be Western, to be scientific. Yet nowhere else are 19th-century colonialist metaphysics and materialist cosmology more firmly entrenched. The piecemeal, truncated study of “Magic in Islam” to date has thus of-ten been pursued in service of either scientistic or religionist agendas, whereby magic can only ever be failed science or apolitical religion, and Islam can never be the West; Islamic Magic as simply Western and often imperial Science-and-Religion is thereby utterly disappeared from historiographical purview. And even those Islamicist historians of science and historians of religion who eschew ideology in favor of rigorously empirical philology, the majority, have tended to favor outsider, polemical discourses over insider, practitioner ones, and “classical” sources over “postclassical,” resulting in bizarre historiographical distortions and the disenchanting sanitization of Islamicate societies past and present. This manifesto therefore proposes a way out of this dire epistemological and ethical bind. To re-store Islamic Magic to its rightful place in Western intellectual and cultural history, especially history of science, we must take far more seriously the panpsychist cosmology on which it is predicated, and realize that our own reflexive materialism commits us willynilly to a colonialist agenda that is, ironically, both antireligious and antiscientific.

For security and justice professionals (e.g., police officers, lawyers, judges), the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent important sources of knowledge. However, despite the scope of the scientific work carried out on this subject, professionals can turn to programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The objective of this article is to examine (i) concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs, methods, and approaches, but also (ii) the consequences of their use (e.g., on the life or liberty of individuals). To achieve this objective, we describe the scope of scientific research on nonverbal communication. A program (SPOT; Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques), a method (the BAI; Behavior Analysis Interview) and an approach (synergology) that each run counter to the state of science are examined. Finally, we outline five hypotheses to explain why some organizations in the fields of security and justice are turning to pseudoscience and pseudoscientific techniques. We conclude the article by inviting these organizations to work with the international community of scholars who have scientific expertise in nonverbal communication and lie (and truth) detection to implement evidence-based practices.

It is mostly agreed that Popper's criterion of falsifiability fails to provide a useful distinction between science and pseudo-science, because ad-hoc assumptions are always able to save any theory that conflicts with the empirical data (this is the Duhem-Quine problem), and a characterization of ad-hoc assumptions is lacking.  Moreover, adding some testable predictions is not very difficult.  It should be emphasized that the Duhem-Quine argument does not simply make the distinction approximate (if it were so, all our problems would be solved!), but it makes it totally useless.  Indeed, no philosophical criterion of demarcation is presently able to rule out even some of the most blatant cases of pseudo-science, not even approximatively (in any well defined sense of approximation). This is in sharp contrast with our firm belief that some theories are clearly not scientific.  Where does this belief come from?  In this paper I argue that it is necessary and possible to recognize the notion of syntactic simplicity that is able to tell the difference between empirically equivalent scientific and non-scientific theories, with a precision that is adequate to many important practical purposes, and it fully agrees with the judgments generally held in the scientific community.

For security and justice professionals (e.g., police officers, lawyers, judges), the thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication represent important sources of knowledge. However, despite the scope of the scientific work carried out on this subject, professionals can turn to programs, methods, and approaches that fail to reflect the state of science. The objective of this article is to examine (i) concepts of nonverbal communication conveyed by these programs, methods, and approaches, but also (ii) the consequences of their use (e.g., on the life or liberty of individuals). To achieve this objective, we describe the scope of scientific research on nonverbal communication. A program (SPOT; Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques), a method (the BAI; Behavior Analysis Interview) and an approach (synergology) that each run counter to the state of science are examined. Finally, we outline five hypotheses to explain why some organizations in the fields of sec...

La délimitation entre science et pseudoscience fait partie de la tâche plus générale qui consiste à déterminer quelles croyances sont épistémologiquement justifiées. Karl Popper a proposé la falsifiabilité comme critère important de distinction entre science et pseudoscience. Il soutient que la vérification et la confirmation ne peuvent jouer aucun rôle dans la formulation d'un critère de délimitation satisfaisant. Au lieu de cela, il propose que les théories scientifiques soient distinguées des théories non-scientifiques par des affirmations vérifiables que les observations futures pourraient se révéler fausses.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24472.14084

Past scientific investigations of paranormal/superstitious assertions have proven that they have no basis in objective reality. However, there have been a number of studies on the supposition that the full moon causes an increase in aberrant behaviors in human beings and although the studies with negative results seem to be preponderant, a handful have appeared with (questionable) positive results. In 2016 three instances of a “supermoon” occurred, wherein the moon’s perigee to the Earth was the closest. Several state penitentiaries were contacted and their records requested for during those periods. The supposed effect of a full moon would have presumably increased due to the increased proximity of the satellite yet no significant increase in violent behaviors were evident during the “supermoon.”

На сегодня «генные ассоциаторщики» не несут ни моральной, ни юридической ответственности за свои
предсказания. получается как с ГМО, только с противоположным знаком: ГМО мы бездумно запрещаем, а DCT (Direct-To-Consumer Test) столь же
бездумно разрешаем. и нам еще предстоит серьезно продумать и осознать, какими могут быть последствия для здоровья человека.

This paper presents a preliminary analysis of homeopathy from the perspective of the demarcation problem in the philosophy of science. In this context, Popper, Kuhn and Feyerabend’s solution to the problem will be given respectively and their criteria will be applied to homeopathy, aiming to shed some light on the controversy over its scientific status. It then examines homeopathy under the lens of demarcation criteria to conclude that homeopathy is regarded as science by Feyerabend and is considered as pseudoscience by Popper and Kuhn. By offering adequate tools for the analysis of the foundations, structure and implications of homeopathy, demarcation issue can help to clarify this medical controversy. The main argument of this article is that a final decision on homeopathy, whose scientific status changes depending on the criteria of the philosophers mentioned, cannot be given.
/
Bu makale, bilim felsefesinin önemli konularından biri olan sınır çizme sorunu açısından homeopatinin bir ön analizini sunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda, Popper, Kuhn ve Feyerabend'in sınır çizme sorununa yönelik çözümleri sırasıyla verilecek ve onların ölçütleri, homeopatinin bilimsel durumu üzerindeki tartışmalara ışık tutacak şekilde uygulanacaktır. Homeopatinin Feyerabend tarafından bilim, Popper ve Kuhn açısından ise sözde bilim olduğu sonucuna varmak amacıyla, homeopati sınır çizme ölçütleri çerçevesinde incelenmektedir. Sınır çizme tartışması homeopatinin temellerini, yapısını ve sonuçlarını analiz etmek için yeterli araçları sunarak bu tıbbi tartışmayı netleştirmeye yardımcı olabilir. Bu makalenin temel argümanı, bahsi geçen filozofların ölçütlerine bağlı olarak homeopatinin bilimsel durumu hakkında nihai bir kararın verilemeyeceğidir.

This article is a fragment of scientific research devoted to the analysis of modern approaches to the understanding of architecture. The author opposes the productivity of the analytical approach to the architectural theory and the methodological inconsistency of the declarative approach. In this regard, the problem of demarcation of strict analytical (rational) and publicistic (declarative) formats seems to be relevant.

Статья представляет собой фрагмент научного исследования, посвященного анализу современных подходов к теоретическому осмыслению феноменологии архитектуры. Противопоставляются содержательность и продуктивность аналитического подхода к
архитектурной тематике и методологическая несостоятельность подхода декларативного (программного). В этой связи представляется актуальной проблематика демаркации
строгого аналитического (общерационального) и публицистического (декларативного) форматов.

Для цитирования: Фигурный Г.Н. Парадигматика современной архитектуры: аналитика и декларации // Architecture and Modern Information Technologies. – 2019. – №2(47). – С. 71-82 [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа: https://marhi.ru/AMIT/2019/2kvart19/PDF/04_figurnyj.pdf

Several studies have investigated the motivations driving the use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM). Nevertheless, the general public view of these therapies remains relatively unexplored. Our study identifies the social factors that determine a person’s trust in alternative therapies, like homeopathy or acupuncture, drawing conclusions from the results of the Spanish National Survey on the Social Perception of Science and Technology (N=6,357). We show that trust in the effectiveness of CAM therapies is not mutually exclusive with a belief in science for the general public, pointing to a certain level of disinformation. The comparison with superstitions confirms a clear differentiation with the drivers of trust in analyzed CAM therapies. We argue that scientific appearance of these alternative therapies, in terms of prescription, communication and marketing, may play an important role in determining trust in them for a large part of the population. Furthermore, we confirm that women and those with higher socio-economic status are more likely to express trust in the effectiveness of CAM therapies. Additionally, distrust of the influence of big pharma on health policies seems to have an effect on viewing CAM therapies as more effective. Finally, we argue that media and pharmacies may have an effect on the scientific-like perception of CAM therapies, contributing to the social construction of trust in its effectiveness. Therefore, widespread confusion about the scientific validation of homeopathy may be among the main factors driving its successful extension as a practice.

Om te leren hoe archeologie als wetenschap bedreven wordt is het leuk en instructief te kijken naar gevallen waarin de 'spelregels' van de wetenschap al dan niet bewust overtreden worden. In deze presentatie uit 2006 (geschikt voor leerlingen en studenten) bespreek ik aan de hand van een reeks voorbeelden basisbegrippen uit de wetenschappelijke methodologie.

Karl Popper, as a critical rationalist, was an opponent of all forms of skepticism, conventionalism and relativism in science. A major argument of Popper is Hume's critique of induction, arguing that induction should never be used in science. But he disagrees with the skepticism associated with Hume, nor with the support of Bacon and Newton's pure "observation" as a starting point in the formation of theories, as there are no pure observations that do not imply certain theories. Instead, Popper proposes falsifiability as a method of scientific investigation.
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11481.36967

علم با مابعدالطبیعه‌- ‌متافیزیک چه نسبتی دارد؟ آیا علم مدرن درباره متافیزیک سکوت می‌کند؟ درباره شبه‌علم چطور؟ آیا میان علم و شبه‌علم نیز نسبتی برقرار است؟ برای پاسخ به پرسش‌های بالا و تبیین نسبت یا موضِع هریک از این حوزه‌ها به یکدیگر، ابتدا باید به اجمال از واژه‌‌های مابعدالطبیعه یا متافیزیک، علم و شبه‌علم تعاریفی عملیاتی ارائه دهیم.

یعنی بگوییم مقصودمان از این واژه ها در این متن چیست و آن را در چه معنایی به کار می بریم. پیش از شروع باید یادآور شویم مسائلی مانند چیستی علم و چیستی متافیزیک از مهم ترین مسائل فلسفه علم به طور خاص و فلسفه به طور عام است که درباره آن تاکنون هزاران مقاله و کتاب منتشر شده و همین حالا نیز در حال نگارش است. در این نوشتار تعاریف ارائه شده بسیار مختصر و دم دستی هستند.

A good question for ‘integrated history and philosophy of science’ is that of what other philosophical disciplines and intellectual traditions we ought to integrate with.  Few historians and philosophers pursued this question more vigorously than Paul Feyerabend, even if his own efforts lapsed, at times, into excess.  In this talk, I engage with the ‘limits of integration’ theme by asking why Feyerabend ‘defended’ astrology – and what, if anything, contemporary practitioners of ‘integrated history and philosophy of science’ might learn from it.  Two common explanations of the purpose of those defences are rejected as lacking textual support.  A third ‘pluralist’ reading is judged more persuasive, but found to be incomplete, owing to a failure to accommodate Feyerabend’s focus upon the integrity and characters of scientists.  I therefore suggest that the defences are more fully understood as defences of the epistemic integrity of scientists that take the form of critical exposures of failures by scientists to act with integrity.  An appeal is made to contemporary virtue epistemology that clarifies Feyerabend’s implicit association of epistemic integrity and epistemic virtue.  If so, what he was defending was science, not astrology.  I end with two claims. The first is that, read in this way, Feyerabend is more conservative and less radical than people often suppose.  The second is that it would be very useful to further integrate history and philosophy of science with virtue epistemology – as Feyerabend, forty years ago, tried to do.  Doing so would helpfully line up a range of issues of interest to integrated HPS – scientific practice, pluralism, epistemic virtues – and open up new ways of understanding science.

The communication of scientific hypotheses, and more broadly of the provisional and non-absolutist nature of science in general, to a lay audience is being increasingly compromised by the public’s distrust of experts. This distrust frequently takes the form of hyperskepticism, expressed in unfounded fears and moral panics, and is amplified by a clickbait driven media. Clickbait is a text or a thumbnail link that is designed to entice users to follow the link, where the linked piece of content is often simplistic, salacious or misleading. The sensational headlines and summaries are then widely shared on social media by users with pre-existing political and psychological biases. This “attention economy” can result in the “wisdom of the crowd” – as expressed on social media and clickbait driven websites – drowning out the views of subject experts, and allowing for fearmongering and skepticism or distrust of science to take precedence. This article discusses ways in which scientists and communicators of scientific and other complex topics can help laypersons to understand the ways in which they might be prone to being misled. It also introduces concepts that will contribute to their better understanding and communication of scientific claims in a polarised and politicised digital age.

Ever since Socrates, philosophers have been in the business of asking questions of the type "What is X?" Th e point has not always been to actually fi nd out what X is, but rather to explore how we think about X, to bring up to the surface wrong ways of thinking about it, and hopefully in the process to achieve an increasingly better understanding of the matter at hand. In the early part of the twentieth century one of the most ambitious philosophers of science, Karl Popper, asked that very question in the specifi c case in which X = science. Popper termed this the "demarcation problem," the quest for what distinguishes science from nonscience and pseudoscience (and, presumably, also the latter two from each other).

This is the Draft Table of Contents for my forthcoming book (Lexington--hopefully December 2016): Eco-Nihilism: The Philosophical Geopolitics of the Climate Change Apocalypse.

I post it here to give my readers--for whom I'm tremendously grateful--a preview of the book's themes and argument.

The motivation to write a paper on the general nature of science comes from the scientific nature of Quran, which has been a guidance and help in revealing that science is an ontological and teleological construct which the Quran supports. A much-needed discussion of science had to be done because the trend among the people today suggest anything remotely sounding science has become a substituting value for religion and God. People have started believing rather blindly, in science without really understanding what it is, how it works and its limitations. What is science and what is the purpose of science? This paper explains the answers of the question and help reader understand the difference between science and pseudoscience which often people mistake as one. It explains the difference from example of macroevolution, single common ancestor and natural selection. The discussion also elaborates on the essential foundations of science that makes science, science. At the end, the paper elaborates why science cannot be used to ascertain moral truths. The discussion has been analytical in nature rooted in classic literature of philosophy of science and sociology. The readers will come to appreciate the fine principles of science and it’s limitations in revealing scientific truths.

Resumen: La reciente aparición del SARS-CoV-2, causante del covid-2019, ha afectado al mundo entero. Diversas estrategias políticas y sanitarias han sido emprendidas para contenerlo. Como era de esperarse, los defensores de diversas pseudociencias han aprovechado la ocasión para pronunciarse y promocionar sus falsos tratamientos. En este artículo revisaremos algunas actitudes anticiencia, lo cual incluye pseudoterapias, teorías de conspiración, soluciones religiosas y la actitud negacionista de políticos populistas y nacionalistas durante esta crisis.

In this education-oriented paper essential features of science and pseudoscience are contrasted and representative examples of the latter are shortly characterized. The group of these examples consists of essential features of antievolutionism, racism, eugenics, homeopathy, telepathy and radiesthesia. All of them are treated in the following aspects: general remarks, an outline of the history and the present state, theoretical basis and practices, and final evaluation of the domain.

The identification of deviant burials as those of ‘vampires’ is a feature of excavated skeletons from sites across Eastern, Central and Southern Europe as well as the Balkans. Based on a close reading of historic and folkloric sources researchers have sought to match features of excavated sites with narrative descriptions drawn from vampire legend and myth. This study critically reviews the recent claims based on sites in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Greece, Italy, Poland and Slovakia. Whilst it is found that there was a widespread belief in vampires across Europe, it is argued that it is difficult to make absolute claims for ‘vampire’ burials on archaeological grounds as in most cases there are alternate and equally compelling interpretations of the data.

KEYWORDS
ARCHAEOLOGY, HISTORY, SIXTEENTH CENTURY, SEVENTEENTH CENTURY, VAMPIRE, DEVIANT BURIAL, PLAGUE, BLACK DEATH, FOLKLORE, PAGAN, BURIAL, WITCH, BALKANS, EASTERN EUROPE, CENTRAL EUROPE, SOUTHERN EUROPE, BULGARIA, CZECH REPUBLIC, POLAND, GREECE, ITALY, SLOVAKIA, LESBOS, VENICE, APOTROPAIC, VAMPIRIDZHIJA, PERPERIKON, SOZOPOL, PROSTEJOV, CELAKOVICE, DRAWSKO, GLIWICI, SOUTHWELL, KILTEASHEEN, LAZZARETTO NUOVO, NACHTZEHRER, KAMIEN POMORSKI

Karl Popper, ca raționalist critic, a fost un oponent al tuturor formelor de scepticism, convenționalism și relativism în știință. Multe dintre argumentele sale sunt îndreptate împotriva membrilor “Cercului Vienez”. Popper este de acord cu aceștia cu privire la aspectele generale ale metodologiei științifice și neîncrederea lor în metodologia filosofică tradițională, dar soluțiile sale au fost semnificativ diferite. A contribuit semnificativ la dezbaterile privind metodologia științifică generală, demarcarea științei de pseudoștiință, natura probabilității și metodologia științelor sociale.

CUNOAȘTEREA ȘTIINȚIFICĂ, Volumul 1, Numărul 2, Decembrie 2022, pp. 64-70
ISSN 2821 – 8086, ISSN – L 2821 – 8086, DOI: 10.58679/CS83751

This paper presents some linguistic features of manipulation and deception by analyizing examples from pseudo-scientific texts. There are several contents on the internet that source and credibility is doubtful, and these contents are manipulative and deceptive. The aim of investigation reveal these contents, and the results of it provide basis for development of teaching and training materials.

A tanulmány áltudományos szövegekből vett példák elemzésén keresztül mutatja be a manipu-láció és a megtévesztés egyes nyelvi jellemzőit, elemeit. Az interneten számos olyan tartalom terjed, amelyek forrását, hitelességét nehéz ellenőrizni, így könnyen manipulálhatják, megté-veszthetik a felhasználókat. Ez több veszélyt is rejt magában, így különösen fontosak azok a kutatások, amelyek az ilyen tartalmakat igyekeznek leleplezni, az eredmények pedig jó alapot adhatnak tananyagok és tréninganyagok kidolgozásához.

Criticisms of Karl Popper’s critical rationalist epistemology are often confused and misleading. In part that is due to Popper’s somewhat lax use of language, in which technical terms are used in more than one sense. I attempt to clarify Popper’s views by regimenting his terminology. The result is offered as a clear and concise exposition of the main points of Popper’s epistemology.

Семененко А.А. О недопустимости распространения псевдонаучных данных через систему образовательных учреждений школьного и профессионального образования (на примере тиражирования псевдоколесничного «арийского» мифа в учреждениях образования Челябинской области) // Современные аспекты образования, развития, воспитания в образовательном процессе: проблемы и пути решения: материалы Всероссийской научно-практической конференции (АНО ДПО «Институт повышения квалификации и профессиональной подготовки», 25 марта 2022 г.) / ред. колл. Т. Ю. Хабарова, Н. С. Махина, Д. Н. Припутневич, М. Н. Гребенникова. — Воронеж: Воронежский государственный педагогический университет, 2022. — С. 235–238.