Dean Keith Simonton
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- September 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780262037426
- eISBN:
- 9780262344814
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262037426.003.0004
- Subject:
- Psychology, Cognitive Psychology
It is proposed that the distinction between science and pseudoscience can be understood in the context of recent empirical research on the hierarchy of the sciences, a hierarchy that underlies the ...
More
It is proposed that the distinction between science and pseudoscience can be understood in the context of recent empirical research on the hierarchy of the sciences, a hierarchy that underlies the critical distinction between hard and soft science. The hierarchy consolidates several key criteria: (a) rated hardness and paradigm development; (b) consultation rate and graph prominence; (c) theories-to-laws ratio and lecture fluency; (d) peer evaluation consensus, early impact rate, citation concentration, and the h index; (e) multiples probability and anticipation frequency; (f) obsolescence rate and citation immediacy; and (g) confirmation bias favoring positive results. These criteria are then applied to four core standards for judging bona fide science, namely, naturalism, parsimony, falsifiability, and objectivity. This conceptual application then supports the inference that pseudoscientific ideas should increase in probability for sciences lower in the hierarchy, that is, in the softer rather than the harder sciences. Less
It is proposed that the distinction between science and pseudoscience can be understood in the context of recent empirical research on the hierarchy of the sciences, a hierarchy that underlies the critical distinction between hard and soft science. The hierarchy consolidates several key criteria: (a) rated hardness and paradigm development; (b) consultation rate and graph prominence; (c) theories-to-laws ratio and lecture fluency; (d) peer evaluation consensus, early impact rate, citation concentration, and the h index; (e) multiples probability and anticipation frequency; (f) obsolescence rate and citation immediacy; and (g) confirmation bias favoring positive results. These criteria are then applied to four core standards for judging bona fide science, namely, naturalism, parsimony, falsifiability, and objectivity. This conceptual application then supports the inference that pseudoscientific ideas should increase in probability for sciences lower in the hierarchy, that is, in the softer rather than the harder sciences.
Allison B. Kaufman and James C. Kaufman (eds)
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- September 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780262037426
- eISBN:
- 9780262344814
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- The MIT Press
- DOI:
- 10.7551/mitpress/9780262037426.001.0001
- Subject:
- Psychology, Cognitive Psychology
In a post-truth, fake news world, we are particularly susceptible to the claims of pseudoscience. When emotions and opinions are more widely disseminated than scientific findings, and self-proclaimed ...
More
In a post-truth, fake news world, we are particularly susceptible to the claims of pseudoscience. When emotions and opinions are more widely disseminated than scientific findings, and self-proclaimed experts get their expertise from Google, how can the average person distinguish real science from fake? This book examines pseudoscience from a variety of perspectives, through case studies, analysis, and personal accounts that show how to recognize pseudoscience, why it is so widely accepted, and how to advocate for real science. Contributors examine the basics of pseudoscience, including issues of cognitive bias; the costs of pseudoscience, with accounts of naturopathy and logical fallacies in the anti-vaccination movement; perceptions of scientific soundness; the mainstream presence of “integrative medicine,” hypnosis, and parapsychology; and the use of case studies and new media in science advocacy.Less
In a post-truth, fake news world, we are particularly susceptible to the claims of pseudoscience. When emotions and opinions are more widely disseminated than scientific findings, and self-proclaimed experts get their expertise from Google, how can the average person distinguish real science from fake? This book examines pseudoscience from a variety of perspectives, through case studies, analysis, and personal accounts that show how to recognize pseudoscience, why it is so widely accepted, and how to advocate for real science. Contributors examine the basics of pseudoscience, including issues of cognitive bias; the costs of pseudoscience, with accounts of naturopathy and logical fallacies in the anti-vaccination movement; perceptions of scientific soundness; the mainstream presence of “integrative medicine,” hypnosis, and parapsychology; and the use of case studies and new media in science advocacy.
