Element contents
Science, Pseudoscience, and the Demarcation Problem
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2025
Summary
This Element examines various aspects of the demarcation problem: finding a distinction between science and pseudoscience. Section 1 introduces issues surrounding pseudoscience in the recent literature. Popper's falsificationism is presented in Section 2, alongside some of its early critics, such as Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos. It is followed in Section 3 by the notable criticism of the Popperian program by Larry Laudan that put the issue out of fashion for decades. Section 4 explores recent multi-criteria approaches that seek to define pseudoscience not only along a single criterion, but by considering the diversity and historical dimension of science. Section 5 introduces the problem of values (the 'new demarcation problem') and addresses how we can use values in the problem of pseudoscience. Finally, Section 6 concludes by emphasizing the need for an attitude-oriented approach over a rigid, method-based demarcation, recognizing scientific practice's evolving and multifaceted nature.
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009429597Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 06 March 2025
References
Achinstein, Peter (2019). Speculation: Within and about Science. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Agin, Dan (2006). Junk Science: How Politicians, Corporations, and Other Hucksters Betray Us. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Alters, Brian J. (1997). “Whose Nature of Science?,” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34 (1): 39–55.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betz, Gregor (2013). “In Defence of the Value Free Ideal,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (2): 207–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blancke, Stefaan, Boudry, Maarten, and Pigliucci, Massimo (2016). “Why Do Irrational Beliefs Mimic Science? The Cultural Evolution of Pseudoscience,” Theoria 83 (1): 78–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boner, Patrick J. (2013). Kepler’s Cosmological Synthesis: Astrology, Mechanism and the Soul. Boston, MA: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudry, Maarten (2013). “Loki’s Wager and Laudan’s Error: On Genuine and Territorial Demarcation,” in Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudry, Maarten (2022). “Diagnosing Pseudoscience – by Getting Rid of the Demarcation Problem,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 53 (2): 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boudry, Maarten, Blancke, Stefaan, and Pigliucci, Massimo (2015). “What Makes Weird Beliefs Thrive? The Epidemiology of Pseudoscience,” Philosophical Psychology 28 (8): 1177–1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, Mario (1983). Treatise on Basic Philosophy: Volume 6: Epistemology & Methodology II: Understanding the World. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calver, Neil (2013). “Sir Peter Medawar: Science, Creativity and the Popularization of Karl Popper,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society 67: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chigwedere, Pride, Seage, George R. III, Gruskin, Sofia, Lee, Tun-Hou, and Essex, M. (2008). “Estimating the Lost Benefits of Antiretroviral Drug Use in South Africa,” JAIDS: Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes 49 (4): 410–415.Google ScholarPubMed
Cioffi, Frank (2013). “Pseudoscience: The Case of Freud’s Sexual Etiology of the Neuroses,” in Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds.) Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 321–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Close, Frank (1991). Too Hot to Handle: The Race for Cold Fusion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Pinch, Trevor (1982). Frames of Meaning: The Social Construction of Extraordinary Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry, and Pinch, Trevor (1998). The Golem: What You Should Know about Science. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, Harry, Bartlett, Andrew, and Reyes-Galindo, Luis (2017). “Demarcating Fringe Science for Policy,” Perspectives on Science 25 (4): 411–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooter, Roger (1990). “The Conservativism of ‘Pseudoscience’,” in Grim, P. (ed.), Philosophy of Science and the Occult. 2nd ed. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coulter, Harris L. (1984). “Homeopathy,” in Salmon, J. Warren (ed.), Alternative Medicines: Popular and Policy Perspectives. New York and London: Routledge, 57–79.Google Scholar
Currie, Adrian (2016). “Ethnographic Analogy, the Comparative Method, and Archeological Special Pleading,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 55: 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Adrian, and Turner, Derek (2016). “Introduction: Scientific Knowledge of the Deep Past,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 55: 43–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dawid, Richard (2013). String Theory and the Scientific Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawid, Richard (2019). “The Significance of Non-empirical Confirmation in Fundamental Physics,” in Dardashti, R., Dawid, R., and Thébault, K. (eds.), Why Trust a Theory? Epistemology of Fundamental Physics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 99–119.Google Scholar
De Cruz, Helen (2023). “Believing to Belong: Addressing the Novice-Expert Problem in Polarized Scientific Communication,” in Baghramian, M. and Martini, C. (eds.), Questioning Experts and Expertise. New York and London: Routledge, 5–17.Google Scholar
De Morgan, Augustus (1915). A Budget of Paradoxes. 2nd ed. Chicago and London: Open Court.Google Scholar
Deutsch, David (1997). The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes – and Its Implications. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Dobbs, Betty. J. T. (1983). The Foundations of Newton’s Alchemy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Douglas, Heather (2000). “Inductive Risk and Values in Science,” Philosophy of Science 67 (4): 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Douglas, Heather (2009). Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elgin, Mehmet and Sober, Elliott (2017) “Popper’s Shifting Appraisal of Evolutionary Theory,” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 7: 31–55.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. (2022). Values in Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C., and Richards, Ted (eds.) (2017). Exploring Inductive Risk: Case Studies of Values in Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Elliott, Kevin C. and Steel, Daniel (eds.) (2019). Current Controversies in Values and Science. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fasce, Angelo (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 6 (7): 459–488.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Beanato, Damian (2020). “The Multicriterial Approach to the Problem of Demarcation,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 51 (3): 375–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbara, Forrest, and Gross, Paul R. (2007). Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
France, Robert L. (2020). “From Cryptozoology to Conservation Biology: An Earlier Baseline for Entanglement of Marine Fauna in the Western Pacific Revealed from Historic ‘Sea Serpent’ Sightings,” Advances in Historical Studies 9: 45–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedlander, Michael W. (1995). At the Fringes of Science. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, Michael (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. 2nd ed. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1996). “At the Fringes of Science, by Michael W. Friedlander,” Isis 87 (4): 767–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gieryn, Thomas F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gish, Duane T. (1995). Evolution: The Fossils Still Say NO! El Cajon, CA: Institute for Creation Research.Google Scholar
Goldacre, Ben (2012). Bad Pharma: How Drug Companies Mislead Doctors and Harm Patients. London: Fourth Estate.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. (2021). Vaccine Hesitancy: Public Trust, Expertise, and the War on Science. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Maya J. (2023). “Public Trust in Science,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 48 (2): 366–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordin, Michael (2023). Pseudoscience: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf (1984). The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian (1979). “Imre Lakatos’s Philosophy of Science,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 30 (4): 381–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halpern, Megan K., and Elliott, Kevin C. (2022). “Science as Experience: A Deweyan Model of Science Communication,” Perspectives on Science 30 (4): 621–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Sven O. (2009). “Cutting the Gordian knot of demarcation,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3): 237–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Sven O. (2013). “Defining Pseudoscience and Science,” in Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 61–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Sven O. (2017). “Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 63: 39–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, Sven O. (2020). “With All This Pseudoscience, Why So Little Pseudotechnology?” Axiomathes 30 (6): 685–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansson, Sven O. (2021). “Science and Pseudo-Science,” in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science/.Google Scholar
Hecht, David K. (2018). “Pseudoscience and the Pursuit of Truth,” in Kaufman, A. B. and Kaufman, J. C. (eds.), Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy against Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 3–20.Google Scholar
Hirvonen, Ilmari, and Karisto, Janne (2022). “Demarcation without Dogmas,” Theoria 88 (3): 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holman, Bennett, and Wilholt, Torsten (2022). “The New Demarcation Problem,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 211–220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houran, James and Bauer, Henry (2022). “‘Fringe Science’ – A Tautology, Not Pariah,” Journal of Scientific Exploration 36 (2): 207–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2013). Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, Robert (2016). “Why We Should Not Reject the Value-Free Ideal of Science,” Perspectives on Science 24 (2): 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hull, David L. (1999). “The Use and Abuse of Sir Karl Popper,” Biology and Philosophy 14: 481–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jia, Katherine M. Hanage, William P., Lipsitch, Marc et al. (2023). “Estimated Preventable COVID-19 Associated Deaths due to Non-vaccination in the United States,” European Journal of Epidemiology 38 (11): 1125–1128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, Ian, Adams, Andrew, and Mayoh, Joanne (2023). “Motivated Ignorance and Social Identity Threat: The Case of the Flat Earth,” Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture 29 (1): 79–94.Google Scholar
Kaiser, David (2011). How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Kennefick, Daniel (2021). No Shadow of a Doubt: The 1919 Eclipse That Confirmed Einstein’s Theory of Relativity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (1982). Abusing Science: The Case against Creationism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kitcher, Philip (2001). Science, Truth, and Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskinen, Inkeri, and Rolin, Kristina (2022). “Distinguishing between Legitimate and Illegitimate Roles for Values in Transdisciplinary Research,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 91: 191–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kourany, Janet (2008). “Replacing the Ideal of Value-Free Science,” in Carrier, M., Howard, D., and Kourany, J. (eds.), The Challenge of the Social and the Pressure of Practice: Science and Values Revisited. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 87–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1970). “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–23.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1977). “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” in The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 320–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labinger, Jay A., and Collins, Harry (eds.) (2001). The One Culture? A Conversation about Science. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1968). “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69: 149–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1970). “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 91–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1973/1999). “Lectures on Scientific Method,” in Motterlini, M. (ed.), For and against Method, including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 19–112.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre (1974/1978). “Popper on Demarcation and Induction,” in Worrall, J. and Currie, G. (eds.), Imre Lakatos: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–167.Google Scholar
Langmuir, Irving (1989). “Pathological Science,” (edited by Hall, Robert N.), Physics Today 42: 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1981). “A Confutation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science 48 (1): 19–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry (1983). “The Demise of the Demarcation Problem,” in Cohen, R. S. and Laudan, L. (eds.), Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leng, Gareth and Ivor Leng, Rhodri (2020). The Matter of Facts: Skepticism, Persuasion, and Evidence in Science. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, Elisabeth A., and Winsberg, Eric (eds.) (2018). Climate Modelling: Philosophical and Conceptual Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Loxton, and Prothero, Donald R. (2013). Abominable Science! Origins of the Yeti, Nessie, and Other Famous Cryptids. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
John, Lyne, and Howe, Henry F. (1986). “Punctuated Equilibria,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 72 (2): 132–147.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Donald A. (1981). Statistics in Britain 1865–1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Mahner, Martin. (2013). “Science and Pseudoscience How to Demarcate after the (Alleged) Demise,” in Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahner, Martin (2007). “Demarcating Science from Non-science,” in Kuipers, T. A. F. (ed.), General Philosophy of Science: Focal Issues. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 515–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malthouse, E. (2023). “Confirmation Bias and Vaccine-Related Beliefs in the Time of COVID-19,” Journal of Public Health 45 (2): 523–528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mason-Wilkes, Will (2023). “Emphasizing Uncertainty, Celebrating Community and Valuing Values: Science Communication Remedies for the COVID-19 Era and Beyond,” Interdisciplinary Science Reviews 48 (2): 379–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Lee (2019). The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Lee (2021). How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, Ernan (1982). “Values in Science,” Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 2: 3–28.Google Scholar
Menon, Tarun and Stegenga, Jacob (2023). “Sisyphean Science: Why Value Freedom Is Worth Pursuing?” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 13 (48): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Jon D. (1983). “Scientific literacy: A Conceptual and Empirical Review.” Daedalus 11 (2): 9–48.Google Scholar
Nersessian, Nancy J. (2022). Interdisciplinarity in the Making. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, Raymond. S. (1998). “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises,” Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Numbers, Ronald L. (2006). The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Expanded Edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Offit, Paul A. (2018). Bad Advice: Or Why Celebrities, Politicians, and Activists Aren’t Your Best Source of Health Information. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi (1999). The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi (2019). “Systematicity Is Necessary, but Not Sufficient: On the Problem of Facsimile Science,” Synthese 196: 881–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi and Conway, Erik M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi and Conway, Erik M. (2022). “From Anti-Government to Anti-Science: Why Conservatives Have Turned against Science,” Daedalus 151 (4): 98–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, Robert (2000). Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo (2002). Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo (2013). “The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan,” in Pigliucci, M. and Boudry, M. (eds.), Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo (2023). “Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/pseudoscience-demarcation/.Google Scholar
Pigliucci, Massimo, and Boudry, Maarten (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl (1933/2002). “A Criterion of the Empirical Character of Theoretical Systems,” in Popper, K., The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York and London: Routledge, 313–316.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1957/1969). “Science: Conjectures and Refutations,” in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 3rd ed., 33–65.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1959/2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1963/1969). “The Demarcation between Science and Metaphysics,” in Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 3rd ed., 253–292.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1968). “Remarks on the Problems of Demarcation and of Rationality,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Problems in the Philosophy of Science. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 88–102.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge: An Evolutionary Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1974a). “Darwinism as a Metaphysical Research Programme,” in Unended Quest. London: Fontana, 167–180.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl (1974b). “The Philosopher Replies,” in Schilpp, P. A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, La Salle, IL: Open Court, 961–1197.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl. (1978). “Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind,” Dialectica 32 (3/4): 339–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radder, Hans (1982). “An Immanent Criticism of Lakatos’ Account of the ‘Degenerating Phase’ of Bohr’s Atomic Theory,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 13 (1): 99–109.Google Scholar
Rampton, Sheldon, and Stauber, John (2002). Trust Us, We’re Experts! How Industry Manipulates Science and Gambles with Your Future. New York: Penguin Putnam.Google Scholar
Reisch, George (2019). The Politics of Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn, James B. Conant, and the Cold War Struggle for Men’s Minds. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, David (2000). “A Pragmatic Approach to the Demarcation Problem,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31 (2): 249–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnik, David B. and Elliott, Kevin C. (2023). “Science, Values and the New Demarcation Problem,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 54: 259–286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rossi, Lorenzo, Gippoliti, Spartaco, and Maria Angelici, Francesco (2018). “The Role of Indirect Evidence and Traditional Ecological Knowledge in the Discovery and Description of New Ape and Monkey Species since 1980,” Primates; Journal of Primatology 59 (4): 327–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowbottom, Darrell P. (2011). Popper’s Critical Rationalism: A Philosophical Investigation. New York and London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowbottom, Darrell P. (2023). Scientific Progress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael (1977). “Karl Popper’s Philosophy of Biology,” Philosophy of Science 44 (4): 638–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruse, Michael (ed.) (1996). But Is It Science? The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy. New York: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Sarkar, Sahotra (2007). Doubting Darwin? Creationist Designs on Evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Schickore, Jutta and Steinle, Friedrich (eds.) (2006). Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, Samuel (2018). Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality through Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schindler, Samuel (2024). “Normal Science: Not Uncritical or Dogmatic,” Synthese 203: 108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shermer, Michael (2017). “How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail,” Scientific American, January 1, 2017. www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail/.Google Scholar
Sinatra, Gale M., and Hofer, Barbara K. (2021). Science Denial: Why It Happens and What to Do about It. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Specter, Michael (2009). Denialism: How Irrational Thinking Hinders Scientific Progress, Harms the Planet, and Threatens Our Lives. New York: The Penguin Press.Google Scholar
Stamenkovic, Philippe (2024). “Straightening the ‘Value-Laden Turn’: Minimising the Influence of Values in Science,” Synthese 203: 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steel, Daniel (2010). “Epistemic Values and the Argument from Inductive Risk,” Philosophy of Science 77 (1): 14–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taubes, Gary (1993). Bad Science: The Short Life and Weird Times of Cold Fusion. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul R. (1978). “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience?” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1: 223–234.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul R. (1988). Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turner, Derek (2007). Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uebel, Thomas (2019). “Verificationism and (Some of) Its Discontents,” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 7 (4): 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varga, Somogy (2021). “Medicine as Science: Systematicity and Demarcation,” Synthese 199 (3): 3783–3804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Kirsten (2009). Has Laudan Killed the Demarcation Principle? Master Dissertation. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Winsberg, Eric (2018). Philosophy and Climate Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wrobel, Arthur (ed.) (1987). Pseudo-Science and Society in Nineteenth-Century America. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
Zachmann, Karin, Bondio, Mariacarla Gadebusch, Jukola, Saana, and Sparschuh, Olga (eds.) (2023). Evidence Contestation: Dealing with Dissent in Knowledge Societies. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar