Statements, actions, and pseudoscience
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.20416/LSRSPS.V13I1.3Mots-clés :
pseudosciences, demarcations, definitions, unreliability, Research misconductRésumé
Following Sven Ove Hansson's response to my critique of his definition of pseudoscience (Debray, 2023), and since I have elsewhere proposed improvements to his definition that ultimately lead to different boundaries, this response highlights the points of agreement and disagreement between our proposals. I focus on the main difference – the suitable unit of analysis and the definition’s subject – a choice grounded in a theoretical framework that lets us consider distinct issues related to “false, fake, pseudo-science” separately and distinguish different forms of counterfeit.Références
Barats, C. (2013). Manuel d’analyse du web en Sciences Humaines et Sociales. Armand Colin. https://doi.org/10.3917/arco.barat.2013.01
Boltanski, L. (1973). L’espace positionnel. Multiplicité des positions institutionnelles et habitus de classe. Revue Française de Sociologie, 14(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.2307/3320321
Debray, S. (2021, September 8). Définitions de la pseudoscience et des formes inacceptables de science: Dépassement des incohérences actuelles. VIII Congrès de la Société de Philosophie des Sciences (SPS) : Sciences et scientificité. https://hal.science/hal-03622714
Debray, S. (2022a). Le problème de la démarcation. Revue Des Questions Scientifiques, 193(3–4), 301–352. https://www.academia.edu/download/106628327/RQS_2022_3_4_LECTEURS_PROTEGE_5_Debray.pdf
Debray, S. (2022b). Questions médicales controversées, déclarations de consensus et participation du public: Le cas des conférences de consensus du National Institute of Health. Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue Canadienne de Philosophie, 61(1), 55–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217322000257
Debray, S. (2023a). La définition de la pseudoscience chez Sven Ove Hansson: Enjeux, limites, perspectives. Lato Sensu: Revue de la Société de philosophie des sciences, 10(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.20416/LSRSPS.V10I1.2
Debray, S. (2023b). La science et ses contrefaçons: Rôles légitimes et illégitimes des valeurs, des preuves et des agents dans les pratiques et les décisions scientifiques [These de doctorat, Université de Lorraine]. https://theses.fr/2023LORR0290
Debray, S. (2024). On the edges of science. Metascience. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11016-024-00976-8
Desmoulins, L., & Debray, S. (2022, June 11). Au risque de l’adynaton: La revendication par les think tanks de formes de scientificité en renfort de la légitimité de leur raison d’être. https://hal.science/hal-03718359
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Elliott, K. C. (2011). Direct and indirect roles for values in science. Philosophy of Science, 78(2), 303–324.
Elliott, K. C. (2017). A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.fr/books?id=-15UvgAACAAJ
Gordin, M. D. (2023). Pseudoscience: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
Hansson, S. O. (1996). Defining pseudo-science. Philosophia naturalis, 33(1), 169–176.
Hansson, S. O. (2006). How to define: A tutorial. Princípios: Revista de Filosofia (UFRN), 13(19–20), 05–30.
Hansson, S. O. (2008). Science and Pseudo-Science. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/
Hansson, S. O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23(3), 237–243.
Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (Pigliucci, M., Boudry, M. (Eds.), pp. 61–77). 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.
Hansson, S. O. (2020). Disciplines, Doctrines, and Deviant Science. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 33(1), 43–52.
Hansson, S. O. (2023). “Classifying Pseudoscience”: Sven Ove Hansson on Michael D. Gordin’s *On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience* | Society for US Intellectual History. https://s-usih.org/2023/01/classifying-pseudoscience-sven-ove-hansson-on-michael-d-gordins-on-the-fringe-where-science-meets-pseudoscience/
Hilligardt, H. (2022). Looking beyond values: The legitimacy of social perspectives, opinions and interests in science. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 12(4), 58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13194-022-00490-w
Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211–220.
John, S. (2021). Science, politics and regulation: The trust-based approach to the demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 90, 1–9.
Kant, I. (1724-1804) A. du texte. (1967). Critique de la raison pure / par Emmanuel Kant ; nouvelle traduction française, avec notes, par A. Tremesaygues,... Et B. Pacaud,... ; Préface de A. Hannequin...
Kitcher, P. (1993). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford University Press, USA.
Koskinen, I., & Rolin, K. (2022). Distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate roles for values in transdisciplinary research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 191–198.
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
Letrud, K. (2019). The Gordian Knot of Demarcation: Tying Up Some Loose Ends. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 32(1), 3–11.
MacIntyre, A. (2013). After virtue (Third edition). A&C Black.
Mathie, R. T., Lloyd, S. M., Legg, L. A., Clausen, J., Moss, S., Davidson, J. R., & Ford, I. (2014). Randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, 3, 1–16.
Monton, B. (2013). Pseudoscience. In The Routledge companion to philosophy of science. (Curd,M. & Psillos, S. (Eds), pp. 469–478). Routledge.
Pseudoscience. (2024). In Wikipédia. Accessed in 2024-10-28 11:58:32, https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pseudoscience&oldid=218780618
Reiss, J., & Sprenger, J. (2020). Scientific Objectivity. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2020). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2020/entries/scientific-objectivity/
Reutlinger, A. (2022). When do non-epistemic values play an epistemically illegitimate role in science? How to solve one half of the new demarcation problem. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 92.
Sober, E. (2000). Philosophy of Biology (2nd ed.).
Tavernier, A. (2004). «Mais d’où ils parlent?». L’enjeu du titre à parler dans la presse comme lien entre le social et le discursif. Études de Communication. Langages, Information, Médiations, 27.
Wagner, W. E. (2022). No one solution to the “new demarcation problem”?: A view from the trenches. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 92, 177–185.
Téléchargements
Publiée
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Merci de créditer les auteurs lors de toute citation : Stéphanie Debray (2026)
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.
