卡尔·萨根在著作《魔鬼出没的世界》一书中称与世界一样,伪科学在美国泛滥成灾,并分析了它的原因、危险性、诊断和对策。[73]在西班牙,另一名科学作家刘易斯·阿方佐·加梅斯(Luis Alfonso Gámez)揭批一名流行的伪科学家的主张后被告上了法庭。欧洲有很多人认为顺势疗法(34%)和星座(13%)是可靠的科学。[74]在过去的几十年中,寻求替代医学的患者越来越多。研究表明,有严重疾病的患者,如癌症、慢性病、艾滋病都是替代医学的常客。[74]
"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have," Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.
"Many writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie(1988, 438), '[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones.' These and many other authors assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two criteria (Hansson 1996):(1)it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific."Hansson 2008 harvnb error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFHansson2008 (help)
'"claims presented so that they appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation"(p. 17)'Shermer 1997,(this was the definition adopted byArchive-It的存檔,存档日期2015-08-18 the National Science Foundation).
"Pseudoscientific - pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific", from the Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary.
"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now have.", from the Oxford English Dictionary Second Edition 1989.
For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 edition(July 18, 2003)ISBN 978-0-321-05173-8, Bennett et al. The Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3 edition(July 25, 2003)ISBN 978-0-8053-8738-4
Hansson, Sven Ove. Science and Pseudo-Science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. September 3, 2008 [April 16, 2011]. (原始内容存档于2015-09-05). From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas.
However, from the "them vs. us" polarization that its usage engenders, the term may also have a positive function because "[the] derogatory labeling of others often includes an unstated self-definition "(p.266); and, from this, the application of the term also implies "a unity of science, a privileged tree of knowledge or space from which the pseudoscience is excluded, and the user's right to belong is asserted "(p.286) -- Still A & Dryden W (2004) "The Social Psychology of "Pseudoscience": A Brief History", J Theory Social Behav 34:265-290
Magendie, F(1843)An Elementary Treatise on Human Physiology. 5th Ed. Tr. John Revere. New York: Harper, p 150. Magendie refers to phrenology as "a pseudo-science of the present day"(note the hyphen).
Popper, KR (1959) "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". The German version is currently in print by Mohr Siebeck (ISBN 978-3-16-148410-0), the English one by Routledge publishers (ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7).
Paul R. Thagard "Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆)" in PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1978, Volume One: Contributed Papers (1978), pp. 223–234, The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Philosophy of Science Association 223 ff.
Gauch, H.G. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press. 2003: 88 [2014-01-05]. ISBN 9780521017084. LCCN 2002022271. (原始内容存档于2016-05-15). A particularly radical reinterpretation of science comes from Paul Feyerabend, "the worst enemy of science"... Like Lakatos, Feyerabend was also a student under Popper. In an interview with Feyerabend in Science, [he says] "Equal weight... should be given to competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupunture, and witchcraft..."
Thagard PR (1978) "Why astrology is a pseudoscience"(1978)In PSA 1978, Volume 1, ed. Asquith PD and Hacking I(East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978)223 ff. Thagard writes, at 227, 228: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and non confirmations."
Laudan L (1996) "The demise of the demarcation problem" in Ruse, Michael, But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy pp. 337–350.
Pseudoscientific. Oxford American Dictionary. Oxford English Dictionary. Pseudoscientific – pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific
Astrology. Encarta. Microsoft. 2008 [2007-08-28]. (原始内容存档于2009-11-01). Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.
Paul Montgomery Churchland, Matter and Consciousness: A Contemporary Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind(1999)MIT Press. p.90 (页面存档备份,存于互联网档案馆). "Most terms in theoretical physics, for example, do not enjoy at least some distinct connections with observables, but not of the simple sort that would permit operational definitions in terms of these observables. [..] If a restriction in favor of operational definitions were to be followed, therefore, most of theoretical physics would have to be dismissed as meaningless pseudoscience!"
Lakatos I (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." in Lakatos I, Musgrave A (eds) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge pp 91-195; Popper KR (1959) The Logic of Scientific Discovery
Lakatos I (1970) "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes." in Lakatos I, Musgrave A(eds.)Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge 91–195; Thagard (1978) op cit writes: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and disconfirmations."
Hines T, Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988. ISBN 978-0-87975-419-8. Thagard (1978) op cit 223 ff
Devilly, GJ. Power therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2005, 39 (6): 437–445. doi:10.1080/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x.
Sagan, Carl; Ann Druyan. The Most Precious Thing. The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark. Ballantine Books. 1997. ISBN 0-345-40946-9.
Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA. Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. Br J Psychol. 2011, 102 (3): 392–405. PMID 21751996. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210.
Barry Singer and Victor A. Benassi. "Occult Beliefs: Media Distortions, Social Uncertainty, and Deficiencies of Human Reasoning Seem to be at the Basis of Occult Beliefs." American Scientist , Vol. 69, No. 1(January–February 1981), pp. 49–55.
Raymond A. Eve and Dana Dunn. "Psychic Powers, Astrology & Creationism in the Classroom? Evidence of Pseudoscientific Beliefs among High School Biology & Life Science Teachers". The American Biology Teacher , Vol. 52, No. 1(Jan., 1990), pp. 10–21.
Lindeman M. Motivation, Cognition and Pseudoscience. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology. December 1998, 39 (4): 257–65. PMID 9883101. doi:10.1111/1467-9450.00085.
Shermer M, Gould SJ. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Holt Paperbacks. 2002. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3.
Bird, Alexander. The Historical Turn in the Philosophy of Science. Psillos, Stathis; Curd, Martin (编). Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science(PDF). Abingdon: Routledge. 2008: 9, 14 (pdf) [2014-01-08]. (原始内容存档(PDF)于2013-06-01).
Newbold D, Roberts J. An analysis of the demarcation problem in science and its application to therapeutic touch theory. Int J Nurs Pract. 2007, 13 (6): 324–30. PMID 18021160. doi:10.1111/j.1440-172X.2007.00646.x.
David Newbold and Julia Roberts, "An analysis of the demarcation problem in science and its application to therapeutic touch theory" in International Journal of Nursing Practice, Vol. 13
Laudan, Larry. The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. Cohen, R.S.; Laudan, L. (编). Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 76. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. 1983: 111–127. ISBN 90-277-1533-5. 外部链接存在于|chapter= (帮助)
Public Knowledge About S&T. [August 28, 2013]. (原始内容存档于2015-08-18). Surveys conducted in the United States and Europe reveal that many citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience (an indicator of scientific illiteracy) seems to be widespread among Americans and Europeans.
" AMERICAN ADULTS FLUNK BASIC SCIENCE. [August 28, 2013]. A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive® reveals that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.[永久失效連結]
MSU prof: Lack of science knowledge hurting democratic process. [August 28, 2013]. (原始内容存档于2013-09-11). In a survey released earlier this year, Miller and colleagues found that about 28 percent of American adults qualified as scientifically literate, which is an increase of about 10 percent from the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry (编). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2013. ISBN 9780226051963.
Schadewald Robert J. Worlds of Their Own – A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair. Xlibris. 2008. ISBN 978-1-4363-0435-1.
Shermer M, Gould SJ. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: Holt Paperbacks. 2002. ISBN 0-8050-7089-3.
Derksen AA. The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into Freud's rhetorical toolbox. J Gen Phil Sci. 2001, 32 (2): 329–350. doi:10.1023/A:1013100717113.
Gardner, Martin. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science 2nd, revised & expanded. Mineola, New York: Dover Publications. 1957 [2014-01-05]. ISBN 0-486-20394-8. (原始内容存档于2017-02-25). Originally published 1952 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, under the title In the Name of Science.