La définition de la pseudoscience chez Sven Ove Hansson
Enjeux, limites, perspectives
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.20416/LSRSPS.V10I1.2Mots-clés :
pseudoscience, démarcation, définition, fraude scientifique, mauvaise scienceRésumé
Trois stratégies furent principalement adoptées par les philosophes pour résoudre le problème de la démarcation : 1° la recherche d’un critère de démarcation unique et anhistorique, 2° la recherche de listes à critères multiples, 3° la recherche d’une définition de la pseudoscience. En analysant la proposition de Sven Ove Hansson (2013), cet article est principalement focalisé sur la troisième stratégie. L’article poursuit un triple objectif : i) exposer chacun des critères qui composent la définition de la pseudoscience de Hansson en 2013, et les difficultés que l’auteur tente de dépasser, ii) mettre en exergue les limites de cette définition, iii) dégager in fine des propositions permettant d’avancer sur la question de la pseudoscience.
Références
BEYERSTEIN, B.L. (1996) Distinguishing science from pseudoscience. Retrieved on.
BIAGIOLI, M. & LIPPMAN, A. (2020) Gaming the metrics: misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Mit Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.001.0001
BUNGE, M. (1982) Demarcating science from pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae 3, 369–388.
COKER, R. (2001) Distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Quackwatch Home Page.
DERKSEN, A.A. (1993) The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24, 17–42. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00769513
DOUGLAS, H. (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78
DUTCH, S.I. (1982) Notes on the nature of fringe science. Journal of Geological Education 30, 6–13. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6
FASCE, A. (2017) 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, 459–488.
FERNANDEZ PINTO, M. (2017) To Know or Better Not to: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research. Science & Technology Studies 30.
GARDNER, M. (1957) Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover, New York.
GLYMOUR, CLARK, S., DOUGLAS (1990) Winning through Pseudoscience. In Philosophy of Science and the Occult p.2nd ed; Patrick Grim. State University of New York Press, Albany.
GROVE, J.W. (1985) Rationality at risk: Science against pseudoscience. Minerva, 216–240. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099943
GRUENBERGER, F.J. (1964) A measure for crackpots. Science 145, 1413–1415. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.145.3639.1413
HANSSON, S.O. (1983) Vetenskap och ovetenskap: om kunskapens hantverk och fuskverkTiden. Stockholm.
HANSSON, S.O. (1996) Defining pseudo-science. Philosophia naturalis 33, 169–176.
HANSSON, S.O. (2003) Is Philosophy Science? Theoria 69, 153–156. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2003.tb00758.x
HANSSON, S.O. (2008a) Science and Pseudo-Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
HANSSON, S.O. (2008b) Philosophy and other disciplines. Metaphilosophy 39, 472–483. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2008.00567.x
HANSSON, S.O. (2009) Cutting the Gordian knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23, 237–243. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590903196007
HANSSON, S.O. (2013) Defining pseudoscience and science. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem pp. 61–77Pigliucci, M., Boudry, M. (Eds.). University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL.
HANSSON, S.O. (2015) Science versus pseudoscience − Can we tell the difference? In Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademis Årbok 2014 pp. 205–218. Novus forlag, Oslo.
HANSSON, S.O. (2018) What Is Philosophy, Really? Wiley Online Library. Theoria. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12163
HANSSON, S.O. (2020a) How not to defend science. A Decalogue for science defenders. Disputatio [Dec. 2019] 9.
HANSSON, S.O. (2020b) Disciplines, Doctrines, and Deviant Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33, 43–52. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1831258
JONES, J.E. (2005) Memorandum opinion. Kitzmiller et al. vs Dover Area School District, US Supreme Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 20.
KITCHER, P. (1982) Abusing science: The case against creationism. MIT press.
KITCHER, P. (1993) The Advancement of Science : Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, USA.
LACK, C.W. & ROUSSEAU, J. (2016) Critical thinking, science, and pseudoscience: Why we can’t trust our brains. Springer Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826194268
LADYMAN, J. (2013) Toward a demarcation of science from pseudoscience. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem pp. 45–59. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0004
LAKATOS, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific. Research Programmes 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123
LANGMUIR, I. (1989) Pathological science. Research-Technology Management 32, 11–17. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1989.11670607
LAUDAN, L. (1981) A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of science 48, 19–49. Philosophy of Science Association. https://doi.org/10.1086/288975
LAUDAN, L. (1983) The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis pp. 111–127. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6
LILIENFELD, S.O., AMMIRATI, R. & DAVID, M. (2012) Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology 50, 7–36. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006
LUGG, A. (1987) Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica 41, 221–230. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1987.tb00889.x
MAHNER, M. (2013) Science and pseudoscience how to demarcate after the (alleged) demise. Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem, 29–43. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0003
MONTON, B. (2013) Pseudoscience. In The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. pp. 469–478Curd,M. & Psillos, S. (Eds). Routledge.
NICKLES, T. (2013) The Problem of Demarcation History and Future. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (eds M. PIGLIUCCI & M. BOUDRY), p. 101. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0007
PARK, R.L. (2003) The seven warning signs of bogus science. Chronicle of Higher Education 49, B20. Chronicle of Higher Education.
PIGLIUCCI, M. (2013) The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (eds M. PIGLIUCCI & M. BOUDRY), pp. 9–28. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0002
RADNER, D. (1982) Science and unreason.
RUSE, M. (1996) But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy.
SCHICK, T. & VAUGHN, L. (1995) How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age. Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publishing.
SKELTON, R. (2011) A survey of the forensic sciences. Lulu. com.
SOBER, E. (2000) Philosophy of Biology, 2nd edition. Westview Boulder, CO.
SOLOMON, M. (2012) Socially responsible science and the unity of values. Perspectives on Science 20, 331–338. MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00069
THAGARD, P.R. (1988) Computational philosophy of scienceThe MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1968.001.0001
TUOMELA, R. (1985) Science, action, and reality. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5446-5
VOLLMER, G. (1993) Wissenschaftstheorie im Einsatz. Hirzel, Stuttgart.
BIAGIOLI, M. & LIPPMAN, A. (2020) Gaming the metrics: misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Mit Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.001.0001
BUNGE, M. (1982) Demarcating science from pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae 3, 369–388.
COKER, R. (2001) Distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Quackwatch Home Page.
DERKSEN, A.A. (1993) The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24, 17–42. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00769513
DOUGLAS, H. (2009) Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt6wrc78
DUTCH, S.I. (1982) Notes on the nature of fringe science. Journal of Geological Education 30, 6–13. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.5408/0022-1368-30.1.6
FASCE, A. (2017) 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, 459–488.
FERNANDEZ PINTO, M. (2017) To Know or Better Not to: Agnotology and the Social Construction of Ignorance in Commercially Driven Research. Science & Technology Studies 30.
GARDNER, M. (1957) Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Dover, New York.
GLYMOUR, CLARK, S., DOUGLAS (1990) Winning through Pseudoscience. In Philosophy of Science and the Occult p.2nd ed; Patrick Grim. State University of New York Press, Albany.
GROVE, J.W. (1985) Rationality at risk: Science against pseudoscience. Minerva, 216–240. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01099943
GRUENBERGER, F.J. (1964) A measure for crackpots. Science 145, 1413–1415. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.145.3639.1413
HANSSON, S.O. (1983) Vetenskap och ovetenskap: om kunskapens hantverk och fuskverkTiden. Stockholm.
HANSSON, S.O. (1996) Defining pseudo-science. Philosophia naturalis 33, 169–176.
HANSSON, S.O. (2003) Is Philosophy Science? Theoria 69, 153–156. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-2567.2003.tb00758.x
HANSSON, S.O. (2008a) Science and Pseudo-Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
HANSSON, S.O. (2008b) Philosophy and other disciplines. Metaphilosophy 39, 472–483. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2008.00567.x
HANSSON, S.O. (2009) Cutting the Gordian knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23, 237–243. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698590903196007
HANSSON, S.O. (2013) Defining pseudoscience and science. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem pp. 61–77Pigliucci, M., Boudry, M. (Eds.). University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL.
HANSSON, S.O. (2015) Science versus pseudoscience − Can we tell the difference? In Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademis Årbok 2014 pp. 205–218. Novus forlag, Oslo.
HANSSON, S.O. (2018) What Is Philosophy, Really? Wiley Online Library. Theoria. https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12163
HANSSON, S.O. (2020a) How not to defend science. A Decalogue for science defenders. Disputatio [Dec. 2019] 9.
HANSSON, S.O. (2020b) Disciplines, Doctrines, and Deviant Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 33, 43–52. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/02698595.2020.1831258
JONES, J.E. (2005) Memorandum opinion. Kitzmiller et al. vs Dover Area School District, US Supreme Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania 20.
KITCHER, P. (1982) Abusing science: The case against creationism. MIT press.
KITCHER, P. (1993) The Advancement of Science : Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, USA.
LACK, C.W. & ROUSSEAU, J. (2016) Critical thinking, science, and pseudoscience: Why we can’t trust our brains. Springer Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826194268
LADYMAN, J. (2013) Toward a demarcation of science from pseudoscience. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem pp. 45–59. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0004
LAKATOS, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific. Research Programmes 1. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123
LANGMUIR, I. (1989) Pathological science. Research-Technology Management 32, 11–17. Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.1989.11670607
LAUDAN, L. (1981) A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of science 48, 19–49. Philosophy of Science Association. https://doi.org/10.1086/288975
LAUDAN, L. (1983) The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis pp. 111–127. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-7055-7_6
LILIENFELD, S.O., AMMIRATI, R. & DAVID, M. (2012) Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology 50, 7–36. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006
LUGG, A. (1987) Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica 41, 221–230. Wiley Online Library. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1987.tb00889.x
MAHNER, M. (2013) Science and pseudoscience how to demarcate after the (alleged) demise. Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem, 29–43. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0003
MONTON, B. (2013) Pseudoscience. In The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. pp. 469–478Curd,M. & Psillos, S. (Eds). Routledge.
NICKLES, T. (2013) The Problem of Demarcation History and Future. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (eds M. PIGLIUCCI & M. BOUDRY), p. 101. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0007
PARK, R.L. (2003) The seven warning signs of bogus science. Chronicle of Higher Education 49, B20. Chronicle of Higher Education.
PIGLIUCCI, M. (2013) The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan. In Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem (eds M. PIGLIUCCI & M. BOUDRY), pp. 9–28. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0002
RADNER, D. (1982) Science and unreason.
RUSE, M. (1996) But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy.
SCHICK, T. & VAUGHN, L. (1995) How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age. Mountain View. CA: Mayfield Publishing.
SKELTON, R. (2011) A survey of the forensic sciences. Lulu. com.
SOBER, E. (2000) Philosophy of Biology, 2nd edition. Westview Boulder, CO.
SOLOMON, M. (2012) Socially responsible science and the unity of values. Perspectives on Science 20, 331–338. MIT Press One Rogers Street, Cambridge, MA 02142-1209, USA. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00069
THAGARD, P.R. (1988) Computational philosophy of scienceThe MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1968.001.0001
TUOMELA, R. (1985) Science, action, and reality. Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5446-5
VOLLMER, G. (1993) Wissenschaftstheorie im Einsatz. Hirzel, Stuttgart.
Téléchargements
Publiée
2023-12-15
Comment citer
Debray, Stéphanie. 2023. « La définition De La Pseudoscience Chez Sven Ove Hansson: Enjeux, Limites, Perspectives ». Lato Sensu: Revue De La Société De Philosophie Des Sciences 10 (1):13-23. https://doi.org/10.20416/LSRSPS.V10I1.2.
Numéro
Rubrique
Article de recherche
Licence
(c) Tous droits réservés Stéphanie Debray-Menaoum 2023
Ce travail est disponible sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
Les auteurs conservent le droit d'auteur et accordent à la revue le droit de première publication, l'ouvrage étant alors disponible simultanément, sous la licence Licence d’attribution Creative Commons permettant à d'autres de partager l'ouvrage tout en en reconnaissant la paternité et la publication initiale dans cette revue.
