DOCSLIB.ORG

Positivism and Christianity

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Positivism and Christianity POSITIVISM AND CHRISTIANITY A STUDY OF THEISM AND VERIFIABILITY POSITIVISM AND CHRISTIANITY A STUDY OF THEISM AND VERIFIABILITY by KENNETH H. KLEIN MARTINUS NIJHOFF• / THE HAGUE / 1974 To myfather © 1974 by Martinus NijhoJ!, The Hague, Netherlands Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 1974 All rights reserved, including the right to translate or to reproduce this book or parts thereof in any form ISBN-13: 978-90-247-1581-7 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-010-2014-5 001: 10.1007/978-94-010-2014-5 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION VII Chapter I. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES A. Overview of the Positivist stand upon theism 1 B. Exposition of the Positivist stand on the issues 5 1. "The statement that God exists is, at least putatively, a statement of fact" 5 2. "A necessary condition of a genuine statement of fact is that it must be Verifiable" 13 3. "The statement that God exists is not Verifiable" . 21 Retrospect 37 C. Appendix: Unintelligible words and unintelligible sentences 38 Chapter II. THEISM WITHOUT BELIEF IN GoD . 49 A. Religious belief construed as a moral commitment 51 B. Religious belief construed as "slanting" . 57 C. Religious belief construed as the contemplating of a "sym- bol picture" . 61 Discussion 68 Transition to Chapters III and IV 73 Chapter III. TESTABILITY AND FACTUAL SIG1"1FICANCE . 75 A. The search for a criterion of factual significance. 76 B. Formulations and difficulties . 81 1. The paradigm case: The criterion of verifiability 82 2. The criterion of verifiability in principle . 84 3. The extended criterion of verifiability in principle 86 4. The criterion of falsifiability in principle . 91 VI CONTENTS 5. The criterion of partial verifiability 92 6. The criterion of Verifiability 93 C. Further problems 97 1. Statements about other minds . 97 2. Statements about "unobservables" in science 104 Retrospect 111 Chapter N. ARE THEOLOGICAL SENTENCES TESTABLE? . 113 A. Terrestrial falsifiability . 115 B. Eschatological verifiability 121 C. Terrestrial verifiability 133 Retrospect 149 Chapter V. DILEMMAS 151 A. Summary of the argument . 152 B. Objections and dilemmas . 154 1. Conclusive Verifiability. 154 2. Verifiability in principle 157 3. Ad hoc exceptions 159 4. The translatability criterion 161 5. Falsifiability and theological statements 166 6. The transcendence of God . 169 SELECTED BmLlOGRAPHY 175 INDEX 180 INTRODUCTION This essay is conceived as a critical exposition of the central issues that figure in the ongoing conversation between Logical Positivists and neo­ Positivists on the one hand and Christian apologists on the other. My expository aim is to isolate and to describe the main issues that have emer­ ged in the extended discussion between men of Positivistic turn of mind and men sympathetic to the claims of Christianity. My critical aim is to select typical, influential stands that have been taken on each of these issues, to assess their viability, and to isolate certain dilemmas which discussion of these issues has generated. I am convinced that the now commonly rejected verifiability theory of meaning is very commonly misunderstood and has been rejected by and large for the wrong reasons. Before it is cast off-if it is to be cast off-what is needed is a reconsideration of that theory and of the objections that its several formulations have elicited. Furthermore, at least partially because of a misconstruing of the verifiability doctrine, there have been some interesting-though in my opinion unsuccessful-claims advanced about the testability-status of sentences expressive of Christian belief. Moreover, in their haste to vindicate Christianity, some apologists have been fairly cavalier, in my opinion, about what "Christianity" involves. This volume offers what I hope will be a clear statement and analysis of the principle points at issue between Positivism and Christianity, together with my own assessment of where the argument stands now. My attempt through­ out has been to provide for teachers, students, and interested laymen an orderly, concise discussion of several of the most crucial, interrelated issues that figure prominently in this manifestly vivid, still-unclosed chapter of contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. My claim will be that the problems posed by Positivism for Christianity, and for any theism of this type, have not yet been resolved either by the alleged discrediting of Positiv­ ism or by the apologetic efforts formulated thus far. The issues examined here are historically associated with the formulation, vm INTRODUCTION dissemination, and eventual widespread influence of the doctrines of Logical Positivism, a philosophical movement which enjoyed prominence in Austria, England, and America during the second and third decades of this century. Although Logical Positivism, considered as a philosophical movement, is passe, its influence upon recent philosophy of religion is massive, its philo­ sophical afterbirth-linguistic analysis-has been sanguine, and some of its own tenets are still defended, albeit in usually sharply modified form. The doctrines of Logical Positivism have a complicated genealogical history, stemming not only from the writings of Kant and the tradition of British empiricism, but also from writers of more recent vintage-physicists, logi­ cians, sociologists, and philosophers of science. The immediate progenitors of Positivism were a small group of philosophers, scientists, and mathema­ ticians more or less loosely gathered together by Moritz Schlick in the early 1920's at the University of Vienna who gave themselves the name of "the Vienna Circle." The officially recognized precursors of Positivist ideas are remembered in a sort of Positivist manifesto-Wissenschaftliche Weltauf­ !assung, Der Wiener Kreis-written in 1929 by Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, and Hans Hahn. No attempt will be made in this volume at historical completeness, com­ pleteness either with respect to the full evolution and variety of Positivist doctrines or with respect to the burgeoning variety of responses offered in service to Christian apologetics. Readers interested in the broader concep­ tual picture would do well to look at A. J. Ayer's Logical Positivism and at Frederick Ferre's Language, Logic, and God and to follow up some of the generous bibliographical leads provided there. My focus in this essay is with-so to speak-hard-core Positivism as it bears on Christianity and with more or less direct, first-generation responses to Positivism in defense of Christian orthodoxy. Developments in Christian apologetics within the last decade or so have been very interesting indeed. These developments, how­ ever, open an entirely new chapter and I have thought it best, in the interest of preserving singleness of theme, to neglect them in this study. My book takes a dual look at one of the central doctrines of Logical Positivism-dual, in that I will be looking both at the doctrine itself (the verifiability-doctrine) and also at the impact which this doctrine has made in one field of inquiry (Christian apologetics). That portion of the book which will be devoted to examining the doctrine itself will try to ascertain whether or not the doctrine is tenable and, if so, in what form. If the doctrine is tenable, it constitutes, or appears to constitute, a challenge to-indeed an attack upon-the intelligibility of that type of religious belief exemplified by Christianity. Of course the Positivists' attack upon Christianity was but INTRODUCTION IX one instance of their hostility to "metaphysics" in general. By focusing upon this one instance of their attack, I do not mean to suggest that Christianity was singled out for special disfavor. But since the Positivistic bite was force­ fully felt by philosophers of religion and particularly by Christian apologists, it is appropriate to field the argument at the point of one of its foci of conflict, even though there were others as well. Whether or not the doctrine which the Positivists employed to undermine Christianity is tenable, there are many writers of contemporary philosophy of religion who certainly think that it is. Certain writers are sufficiently worried about the potential destructive fecundity of the doctrine in question that they have tried to answer the Positivists in some way or another. What these answers characteristically have in common is the attempt to vindicate Christianity, or some more general religious orientation of which Christi­ anity is a special case, from Positivist objections. Given this common con­ cern, however, two quite different types of response occur. Some hold that Christianity is not really susceptible to the Positivist's attack in the first place, since Christians are not really disposed to hold what the Positivists think they hold, although they sometimes appear to do so. Others hold that although Christianity is susceptible, in principle, to the Positivists' objection, sentences expressive of a Christian's basic beliefs are not unintelligible in the way the Positivists alleged since these sentences, in their typical use, meet the requirements of intelligibility. These replies to the Positivists' argument, whether the argument is initially sound or not, are interesting in their own right since they highlight topics of concern both to Christian theologians and to philosophers of religion, notably the distinction between the first and the second persons of the Trinity and, more generally, the topic of the transcendence of God. There is another sort of reply to the Positivists which is relevant to their attack upon Christianity.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Coherentist Conception of Ad Hoc Hypotheses
    A coherentist conception of ad hoc hypotheses Samuel Schindler [email protected] forthcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Abstract What does it mean for a hypothesis to be ad hoc? One prominent account has it that ad hoc hypotheses have no independent empirical support. Others have viewed ad hoc judgements as subjective. Here I critically review both of these views and defend my own Coherentist Conception of Ad hocness by working out its conceptual and descriptive attractions. Keywords: ad hoc; confirmation; independent support; novel success; coherence 1 Introduction It is widely agreed—amongst scientists and philosophers alike—that a good hypothesis ought not to be ad hoc. Consequently, a theory that requires ad hoc hypotheses in order to overcome empirical tests ought to be less acceptable for a rational agent than a theory that does without (or with fewer) ad hoc amendments. But what precisely does it mean for a hypothesis to be ad hoc? This is what this paper is about. Concept clarification is one of the central tasks of philosophy. Usually, it involves an explicandum and an explicatum, viz. a pre-analytic concept that is to be explicated and a concept which explicates this concept, respectively (Carnap 1950). For example, the concept TEMPERATURE explicates our pre- analytic concepts of WARM and COLD, and allows us to be much more precise and clear in the way we communicate with each other. In the case of ad hocness, the pre-analytic concept is something along the lines of “was introduced for the sole purpose of ‘saving’ a theory which faces observational anomalies”.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Examples of Pseudoscience
    Four Examples of Pseudoscience Marcos Villavicencio Tenerife, Canarias, Spain E-mail address: [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6700-4872 January 2020 Abstract A relevant issue in the philosophy of science is the demarcation problem: how to distinguish science from nonscience, and, more specifically, science from pseudoscience. Sometimes, the demarcation problem is debated from a very general perspective, proposing demarcation criteria to separate science from pseudoscience, but without discussing any specific field in detail. This article aims to focus the demarcation problem on particular disciplines or theories. After considering a set of demarcation criteria, four pseudosciences are examined: psychoanalysis, speculative evolutionary psychology, universal grammar, and string theory. It is concluded that these theoretical frameworks do not meet the requirements to be considered genuinely scientific. Keywords Demarcation Problem · Pseudoscience · Psychoanalysis · Evolutionary psychology · Universal grammar · String theory 1 Introduction The demarcation problem is the issue of how to differentiate science from nonscience in general and pseudoscience in particular. Even though expressions such as “demarcation problem” or “pseudoscience” were still not used, some consider that an early interest for demarcation existed as far back as the time of ancient Greece, when Aristotle separated episteme (scientific knowledge) from mere doxa (opinion), holding that apodictic certainty is the basis of science (Laudan 1983, p. 112). Nowadays, the issue of demarcation continues being discussed. Certainly, demarcating science from pseudoscience is not a topic of exclusive philosophical interest. Scientists and members of skeptical organizations such as the Committee for Scientific Inquiry also deal with this crucial theme. The issue of how to recognize pseudoscience not only affects academia.
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Service Science Teachers' Discrimination Level Of
    ORIGINAL ARTICLE Pre-service Science Teachers’ Discrimination Level of Science and Pseudoscience Murat Berat Uçar1* Elvan Sahin2 1Department of Mathematics and Science Education, M. R. Faculty of Education, Kilis 7 Aralik University, Kilis, Turkey, 2Department of Mathematics and Science Education, Faculty of Education, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey *Corresponding author: [email protected] ABSTRACT This quantitative study aimed to examine Turkish pre-service science teachers’ beliefs regarding the demarcating between science and pseudoscience. Participants completed the Science and Pseudoscience Distinction Scale. Data collected from the 123 pre-service science teachers were examined based on the dimensions of the instrument, namely science as a process of inquiry (SCI), demarcating between science and pseudoscience, and pseudoscientific beliefs (PS). This study found that these pre-service science teachers generally did not hold strong beliefs on distinguishing science and pseudoscience. Their beliefs regarding SCI were not highly favorable. Moreover, this study revealed that they had some PS. Considering the role of gender and year in the program, the results of two-way MANOVA indicated that there was no statistically significant difference on the related belief constructs for these pre-service science teachers. Thus, the present study intended to shed light on pre-service science teachers’ mindsets about identifying accurate scientific information rather than pseudoscientific confusions that could aid preparing scientifically
    [Show full text]
  • Psych Notes What Is Psychology
    PSYCH NOTES WHAT IS PSYCHOLOGY PSYCHOLOGY AND LEVELS OF ANALYSIS • Psychology: the study of the mind, brain and behaviour • Levels of analysis: rungs on a ladder of analysis, with lower levels tied most closely to biological influences and higher levels tied most closely to social influences • Psychology is not easy to define as it is a vast discipline, encompassing the study of perceptions, emotions, thoughts and observable behaviours from an enormous array of perspectives • The levels of analysis examined in psychology span from molecules to brain structures on the lower rungs to thoughts, feelings and emotions and to social and cultural influences on the higher rungs – ‘neurons to neighbourhoods’ o The lower rungs are more closely tied to ‘the brain’ and the higher rungs to ‘the mind’ o All rungs are essential to understanding the causes of human and animal behaviour • ‘Brain’ and ‘mind’ can be complementary ways of describing and analysing the same underlying psychological processes • To fully understand psychology must consider multiple levels of analysis as each level tells something different and allows us to gain new knowledge • Both biological and social factors are essential for a complete understanding of psychology – they cannot be examined in isolation CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH INVESTIGATING PSYCHOLOGY • The study of psychology is challenging as human behaviour is difficult to predict as almost all actions are multiply determined – they are produced by many factors o Reason why need to be sceptical of single variable explanations
    [Show full text]
  • (1963). Science As Falsification by Karl R. Popper
    The following excerpt was originally published in Conjectures and Refutations (1963). Science as Falsification by Karl R. Popper When I received the list of participants in this course and realized that I had been asked to speak to philosophical colleagues I thought, after some hesitation and consolation, that you would probably prefer me to speak about those problems which interests me most, and about those developments with which I am most intimately acquainted. I therefore decided to do what I have never done before: to give you a report on my own work in the philosophy of science, since the autumn 1919 when I first begin to grapple with the problem, "When should a theory be ranked as scientific?" or "Is there a criterion for the scientific character or status of a theory?" The problem which troubled me at the time was neither, "When is a theory true?" nor "When is a theory acceptable?" my problem was different. I wished to distinguish between science and pseudo-science; knowing very well that science often errs, and that pseudoscience may happen to stumble on the truth. I knew, of course, the most widely accepted answer to my problem: that science is distinguished from pseudoscience—or from "metaphysics"—by its empirical method, which is essentially inductive, proceeding from observation or experiment. But this did not satisfy me. On the contrary, I often formulated my problem as one of distinguishing between a genuinely empirical method and a non-empirical or even pseudo-empirical method — that is to say, a method which, although it appeals to observation and experiment, nevertheless does not come up to scientific standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Science, Pseudo-Science and Traditional Knowledge†
    Article in: ALLEA Biennial Yearbook 2002 (pp.27-38). Amsterdam: ALLEA Science, Pseudo-Science and Traditional Knowledge† Dagfinn Føllesdal* Traditional knowledge, for example in taxonomy, agriculture, medi- cine, natural resource management, and conservation, is valuable both as a resource and as part of the cultural lore. However, it tends to be neglected by modern science, and some scientists regard it as at odds with modern science. How does it differ from astrology, creationism, and various kinds of ‘nature medicine’ that often come in open conflict with science? And how do both of these two groups of endeavors differ from science? ICSU, the International Council for Science (until 1998: International Council of Scientific Unions), has raised these questions in connection with two documents that resulted from The World Con- ference of Science that was arranged in Budapest, Hungary, from 26 June to 1 July 1999: Declaration on Science and the Use of Scientific Knowledge, and Science Agenda – Framework for Action. These two documents define a strategy that shall insure that science responds bet- ter to society’s needs and aspirations in the twenty-first century, and they both emphasize the importance of preserving and showing respect for traditional knowledge. The Declaration states, in § 26: That traditional and local knowledge systems as dynamic expressions of perceiving and understanding the world, can make and historically have made, a valuable contri- bution to science and technology, and that there is a need to preserve, protect, re- search and promote this cultural heritage and empirical knowledge. This principle is further elaborated in the Framework for Action, nota- bly in Section 3.4, ‘Modern Science and Other Systems of Knowledge’.
    [Show full text]
  • Science and Pseudoscience
    Chapter Nine - Science and Pseudoscience “We are living at a time of rising interest, on the part of an uninformed public, in wild beliefs which the entire science community considers close to zero in credibility.” --Martin Gardner “The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” --H. L. Mencken Many of our students emerge after years of compulsory education with no grasp of the nature of science. Polls done for the National Science Foundation have repeatedly found that many Americans are scientifically illiterate. Millions of Americans believe that the sun goes around the earth, that it takes one day for the earth to orbit the sun, that an electron is larger than an atom, and that sound travels faster than light. Most Americans could not tell you what a molecule is. The great majority of American high school graduates have not had a day’s instruction in algebra, physics, or chemistry. In one survey, 75 percent said they believe antibiotics are effective against viruses. In another, one in six could not identify DNA. One study even found that about 19 percent of high school biology teachers erroneously believe that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Dr. Raymond Eve, director of the study, was most surprised by the finding that 95 percent of the teachers surveyed seemed to misunderstand what science is all about. Given the statement, “Scientists seek facts, but sometimes the best they can do is theories,” only 5 percent correctly answered “definitely false.” Only about one-fourth of the biology teachers responding to Eve’s study have degrees in biology.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophical Perspectives on Ad Hoc Hypotheses and the Higgs Mechanism
    Philosophical perspectives on ad hoc hypotheses and the Higgs mechanism Simon Friederich · Robert Harlander · Koray Karaca The authors’ names are listed in alphabetical order. S. Friederich *New address* University of Groningen, Faculty of Philosophy, Oude Boteringestraat 52, NL-9712 GL Groningen, The Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] *Former address* Philosophisches Seminar, Universität Göttingen, Humboldtallee 19, 37073 Göttingen, Germany R. Harlander Theoretische Teilchenphysik, Fachbereich C, Universität Wuppertal, 42097 Wuppertal, Germany e-mail: [email protected] K. Karaca Interdisciplinary Centre for Science and Technology Studies (IZWT), University of Wuppertal, Gaußstr. 20, 42119 Wuppertal, Germany e-mail: [email protected] Abstract: We examine physicists’ charge of ad hocness against the Higgs mechanism in the standard model of elementary particle physics. We argue that even though this charge never rested on a clear-cut and well-entrenched definition of “ad hoc”, it is based on conceptual and methodological assumptions and principles that are well-founded elements of the scientific practice of high-energy particle physics. We further evaluate the implications of the recent discovery of a Higgs-like particle at the CERN’s Large Hadron Collider for the charge of ad hocness against the Higgs mechanism. “Of course our model has too many arbitrary features for these predictions to be taken very seriously […]” (Weinberg 1967, pp. 1265-1266) 1. Introduction The Higgs mechanism (HM) is a crucial part of the “standard model” (SM) of elementary particle physics. Its main purpose is to account consistently and in accordance with experimental results for the non-vanishing masses of elementary particles in the SM.
    [Show full text]
  • SCIENCE VERSUS PSEUDOSCIENCE for Distinguishing Science from Pseudoscience
    Science versus Austrian (and later British) philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper; we begin with his Pseudoscience conceptualization. 1 2 Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, Popper and Rachel J. Ammirati1 According to Popper (1959), scientific claims 1Emory University, U.S.A. and 2Binghamton University, U.S.A. are falsifiable: They are in principle capable of being proven false (according to Popper, scientific claims can never be proven true; The prefix “pseudo” means “false.” Accordingly, theycanonlybefalsified).Incontrast,Popper pseudoscience is false science. Yet equating maintained, pseudosciences are impossible pseudoscience with false science is not entirely to falsify, either because their proponents (a) accurate, because most false scientific claims advance claims that are so vague that they are are not pseudoscientific. Instead, we can best untestable or (b) continually invoke ad hoc view pseudosciences as fake sciences that hypotheses—escape hatches or loopholes—that display (often intentionally, but sometimes effectively immunize their claims from refu- unintentionally) the superficial appearance of tation. Eventually, the overuse of ad hoc science but largely lack its substance (Hines, hypotheses can place claims outside of the 2002). Nevertheless, distinguishing “fake” purview of scientific testing. For example, science from both genuine science and other Popper argued that much of Freudian theory forms of false science is more easily said than is pseudoscientific, because no conceivable done (Pigliucci & Boudry, 2013). The question evidence could disprove it. For example, Pop- of how to differentiate pseudoscience from per considered Freud’s concept of the Oedipus other disciplines bears significant implications complex (the idea that young children are for clinical psychology and allied mental health romantically attracted to the opposite-sex fields, because numerous authors contend that parent) as unfalsifiable and therefore pseu- these fields’ scientific foundations are being doscientific.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6 the 'Corroboration' of Theories Hilary Putnam
    Chapter 6 The 'Corroboration' of Theories Hilary Putnam Sir Karl Popper is a philosopher whose work has influenced and stimulated that of virtually every student in the philosophy of science. In part this influence is explainable on the basis of the healthy-mindedness of some of Sir Karl's fundamental attitudes: 'There is no method peculiar to philosophy'. 'The growth of knowledge can be studied best by studying the growth of scientific knowledge.' Philosophers should not be specialists. For myself, I am interested in science and in philosophy only because I want to learn something about the riddle of the world in which we live, and the riddle of man's knowledge of that world. And I believe that only a revival of interest in these riddles can save the sciences and philosophy from an obscurantist faith in the expert's special skill and in his personal knowledge and authority. These attitudes are perhaps a little narrow (can the growth of knowledge be studied without also studying nonscientific knowledge? Are the problems Popper mentions of merely theoretical interest—just 'riddles'?), but much less narrow than those of many philosophers, and the 'obscurantist faith' Popper warns against is a real danger. In part this influence stems from Popper's realism, his refusal to accept the peculiar meaning- theories of the positivists, and his separation of the problems of scientific methodology from the various problems about the 'interpretation of scientific theories' which are internal to the meaning-theories of the positivists and which positivistic philosophers of science have continued to wrangle about.' In this paper I want to examine his views about scientific methodology—about what is generally called 'induction', although Popper rejects the concept—and, in particular, to criticize assumptions that Popper has in common with received philo- sophy of science, rather than assumptions that are peculiar to Popper.
    [Show full text]
  • Falsification and Refutation
    Falsification and refutation Nicolae Sfetcu 19.02.2019 Sfetcu, Nicolae, "Falsification and refutation", SetThings (February 19, 2019), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22162.09923, URL = https://www.telework.ro/en/falsification-and-refutation/ Email: [email protected] This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/. This is a partial translation of: Sfetcu, Nicolae, "Distincția dintre falsificare și respingere în problema demarcației la Karl Popper", SetThings (3 iunie 2018), MultiMedia Publishing (ed.), DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10444.72329, ISBN 978-606-033-139-1, URL = https://www.telework.ro/ro/e-books/distinctia-dintre-falsificare-si- respingere-in-problema-demarcatiei-la-karl-popper/ Dogmatic falsifiability refers to scientific statements considered individually. These can be falsified and, depending on the outcome, scientific theories can be considered falsifiable and accepted, refuted, or can be maintained by adding ad-hoc hypotheses: ” There is one important method of avoiding or evading refutations: it is the method of auxiliary hypotheses or ad hoc hypotheses. If any of our conjectures goes wrong - if, for example, the planet Uranus does not move exactly as Newton's theory demands - then we have to change the theory. But there are in the main two kinds of changes; conservative and revolutionary. And among the more conservative changes there are again two: ad hoc hypotheses and auxiliary hypotheses... I call a conjecture 'ad hoc' if it is introduced (like this one) to explain a particular difficulty, but if (in contrast to this one) it cannot be tested independently.” (K.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hypothesis That Saves the Day. Ad Hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience
    Logique & Analyse 223 (2013), x–x THE HYPOTHESIS THAT SAVES THE DAY. AD HOC REASONING IN PSEUDOSCIENCE MAARTEN BOUDRY Abstract What is wrong with ad hoc hypotheses? Ever since Popper’s falsifi- cationist account of adhocness, there has been a lively philosophical discussion about what constitutes adhocness in scientific explana- tion, and what, if anything, distinguishes legitimate auxiliary hy- potheses from illicit ad hoc ones. This paper draws upon distinct examples from pseudoscience to provide us with a clearer view as to what is troubling about ad hoc hypotheses. In contrast with other philosophical proposals, our approach retains the colloquial, derog- ative meaning of adhocness, and calls attention to the way in which the context of a theoretical move bears on the charge of adhocness. We also discuss the role of motivations implicit in the concept of adhocness, and the way ad hoc moves draw on theory-internal ra- tionalizations. 1. Introduction In both academic and popular discussions on the scientific status of contro- versial theories, a hypothesis or explanation is often rejected as being ad hoc. In philosophical discussions about the demarcation project, i.e. the problem of distinguishing bona fide science from non-science, the practice of resorting to ad hoc moves in the face of anomalous data is often regarded as a distinguishing feature of bad science or pseudoscience (Pigliucci and Boudry 2013). Traditional analyses of adhocness, however, inspired by falsificationist philosophy, suffer from a number of problem, in line with well-known shortcomings of Popper’s solution to the demarcation problem (Nickles 2006; Hansson 2009; Pigliucci and Boudry 2013).
    [Show full text]