Book - On The Fringe (exploring the line between science and pseudoscience)

[Leigha]

(Author Michael) Gordin provides neat, quick summaries of all these issues in his brief but thoughtful and enjoyable book. Most valuable of all is his first chapter, in which he demolishes the notion that philosopher Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” criterion allows a clear demarcation between science and non- (or pseudo-) science. Falsifiable, Gordin points out, is undefinable. If nothing else, every working scientist (and science journalist) should read this chapter to learn that the refrain “if it’s not falsifiable, it’s not science” is philosophically unsound gibberish, a sign of a weak argument.

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/on-t...udoscience


Sounds interesting. I think there's an ''art'' to convincing people to believe certain things, but from my observation, you can't change people's minds. They have to want to change. That said, I think many people (find it easier) to believe kind, thoughtful ''pseudo-scientists'' over actual scientists (who may at times, appear to ''lecture'', apply rigor, etc.) even if the latter is correct.

Anyway, something new to think about . . .

[Syne]

A "science historian" claiming "there is no such thing as pseudoscience" doesn't mean much.

Falsifiablity is a good first test of whether something is science. If it's not falsifiable, it's speculation, at best...which many accept as science, in the form of abiogenesis, dark matter, etc..

[Yazata]

Thanks for turning me onto this book, Leigha. I just downloaded an e-copy.

It's a short little thing, 133 pages including front-matter and index. Oxford University Press. From skimming through it, I think that I agree with much of it, though definitely not all.

The first chapter purports to be an overview of the 'demarcation problem', but it seems to devote most of its time to attacking Popper's 'falsifiability criterion'. I agree that the falsifiability criterion has become kind of a shibboleth, if only because any theory can be saved from falsification merely by adjusting auxiliary hypotheses. But there's a lot more to the demarcation question than that.

Of course that's what the rest of the book is about, where the author addresses the afterlife of defunct sciences of the past (astrology, alchemy etc.), the politicization of science and issues like that.