DOCSLIB.ORG

Pseudoscience Versus Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

W&M ScholarWorks Arts & Sciences Articles Arts and Sciences Winter 11-2016 Pseudoscience versus science Hans Christian von Baeyer College of William and Mary, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/aspubs Recommended Citation von Baeyer, Hans Christian, Pseudoscience versus science (2016). PHYSICS TODAY, 69(11). 10.1063/PT.3.3345 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Arts and Sciences at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Arts & Sciences Articles by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Pseudoscience versus science Hans Christian von Baeyer Citation: Physics Today 69, 11, 11 (2016); doi: 10.1063/PT.3.3345 View online: https://doi.org/10.1063/PT.3.3345 View Table of Contents: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/toc/pto/69/11 Published by the American Institute of Physics Articles you may be interested in Pseudoscience versus science Physics Today 69, 12 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3346 Pseudoscience versus science Physics Today 69, 10 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3342 Pseudoscience versus science Physics Today 69, 10 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3344 Pseudoscience versus science Physics Today 69, 10 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3343 Transforming nature Physics Today 69, 8 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3341 Commentary: The dangerous growth of pseudophysics Physics Today 69, 10 (2016); 10.1063/PT.3.3151 the passionate claims of pseudoscientific was well-packaged: “Well, there’s a book beliefs, it’s our duty to dust off our ne - for that!” Ham’s audience vibrantly ap- glected tools of scientific rhetoric. plauded. Nye’s facts were met with un - To constructively counter pseudo- wavering silence. Behind Ham’s curtain science, I suggest, first, that we not den- is the false narrative that science is di- igrate or belittle its merchants or con- vided into “observational” and “histori- sumers, and second, that we take time to cal” knowledge. In his consumers’ minds, understand perspectives of the pseudo- events of the past cannot be known if we Laboratory science and antiscience audience. were not there to witness them firsthand, Belittling others with names like and the Bible represents the firsthand Cryostats “idiot” and “kook” as found on the infor- account. We could exclaim, “Well, there mational website suggested by Hassani is the universe for that!” but what com- 1.5 W @ 4.2 K contributes nothing to any conversation. pelling narrative does it support? It feeds into the “they don’t respect us” We must counter the rising tide of narrative of pseudoscience purveyors. destructive pseudoscience by engaging Each person comes to us as they are. They in penetrating scientific rhetoric in pub- may ask, “How does a photon know lic spaces. there’s only one slit and not two?” in the Tim LaFave Jr double-slit experiment. If we snicker at ([email protected]) their apparent notion of sentient photons, Southern Methodist University we miss the fact that they’ve visualized Dallas, Texas themselves riding alongside photons as Albert Einstein did in his famous gedanken experiments. We earn respect as lthough I completely agree with educators by treating questions as cata- Sadri Hassani’s warning, I think the lysts of intelligent conversations and by A philosophical questions that moti- empathizing with each person. vate scientists are universal. As physi- Most pseudoscience consumers be- cists, we should respect and celebrate the lieve that they’ve adequately applied the asking of questions, even as we point out scientific method and that their intuition how science and pseudoscience differ in is subsequently correct. Many are simply arriving at the answers. misled by rhetorical use of colloquial The notion of conscious photons, for language. Rather than worrying about example, has a long and fascinating his- misuse of the word “energy” as Hassani tory. One example of a rational question does, I’d worry more about the word and an answer that we might mock “wavefunction.” The fact that nearly Probe Stations today stands out for its utter charm. everything in quantum theory derives French encyclopedist Denis Diderot from this purely nonphysical entity will for Nanoscience (1713–84) supported the Greek concep- eventually go viral. We must clearly em- tion of invisible, indivisible, inert atoms. phasize that because the physical world However, he reasonably pointed out, “To is complex and difficult to comprehend, suppose that by placing next to a dead our models and theories shouldn’t be carelessly misconstrued. particle one, two, or three other dead Let’s fine-tune our rhetoric skills. I particles, one can form the system of a recommend reading Plato’s lively dialog living body amounts, it seems to me, to Gorgias, in which he concludes that a flagrant absurdity, or I am grievously bare rhetoric serves no educational pur- mistaken”(reference 1, page 148). pose—it merely persuades. Pseudo - Modern scientists still struggle with scientists are talented rhetoricians ex- the solution to his problem. Diderot took ploiting natural human frailties such as the bull by the horns and simply en- the desire to be right. Rhetoric cuts to the dowed the atoms themselves with a quick. In the arsenal of pseudoscientists quality he called sensitivity, on which he it opens floodgates to dangerously mis- based a complicated story of the emer- leading beliefs. Our rhetoric as scientists gence of life. He explained one conse- must be based on meaningful facts and quence of his theory in a letter to his feed into natural human instincts, such lover Sophie Volland: as curiosity. Those who loved each other dur- In the 2014 “debate” between Bill Nye, ing their life and have themselves the Science Guy and CEO of the Planetary interred side by side are perhaps Society, and Ken Ham, president of not as foolish as one might think. Answers in Genesis, Ham’s rhetoric Perhaps their ashes come into con- NOVEMBER 2016 | PHYSICS TODAY 11 READERS’ FORUM tact, mingle and unite! Who am I mind is integrated into modern Mysteries always exist in science, and to know? Perhaps they have not atomic physics.... The only “ob- there are two ways to deal with them. lost all feeling, all memory of their server” which is essential in ortho- One is to wait and give science a chance past state; perhaps they retain a dox practical quantum theory is to resolve them. The other, the age-old remnant of warmth and life, which the inanimate apparatus . once strategy of pseudoscience, is to exploit they enjoy in their own way at the the apparatus is in place, and func- the limitation of science and inject spec- tioning untouched, it is a matter of bottom of the cold urn that holds ulative and unproven conjectures as an- them. ...O dear Sophie, I thus complete indifference . whether swers. While biologists have abandoned cling to the hope that I may touch the experimenters stay around to vitalism, the idea has not died out. It has you, feel you, love you, seek you, watch, or delegate such “observ- unite with you, and meld into you ing” to computers.1 been disguised and taken up by modern when we no longer are . if the pseudoscientists: Consciousness is the Experiments that demonstrate our molecules of your erstwhile lover new face of vitalism! were destined to become inspired, mental ability to influence physical ob- Tim LaFave raises a good point re- aroused, and to seek yours scat- jects would be as revolutionary as exper- garding debates between science and tered in nature! Allow me this iments that demonstrated the existence pseudoscience. Unfortunately, the out- reverie, so sweet to me; it would of the electron, the atomic nucleus, and come of such debates would be enor- assure me eternity in you and with gravitational waves. Why don’t the au- mously in favor of pseudoscience, as the you (reference 1, page 151). thors submit their results to mainstream Nye–Ham debate demonstrated. When journals so that the larger community of After this last quote, the late learned the listeners are scientifically illiterate, experimenters could verify them? Yes, and humane quantum chemist Bernard the snake oil vendor wins. That’s why, in mainstream journals—that is where all Pullman added laconically: “After ani- my Commentary, I proposed that pseudo - the aforementioned experiments were mate, sensitive, and intelligent atoms, science be challenged in the classroom, published and where all science revolu- here now are atoms in love. And why where science is not drowned in the tionaries disseminate their ideas. not, indeed?” rhetorical charm of pseudoscience. There are essentially three categories Philosophy, despite “its utter charm,” Reference of scientists: mainstreamers; those main- as Hans Christian von Baeyer suggests, 1. B. Pullman, The Atom in the History of streamers who bend the mainstream; has been at odds with science ever since Human Thought, A. Reisinger, trans., Ox- and those who leave the mainstream and their separation. Democritus, the ancient ford U. Press (1998). become pseudoscientists. scientist, said about philosophy: “Noth- Hans Christian von Baeyer All true scientists are in the first cate- ing exists except atoms and empty space; ([email protected]) gory. If they are exceptionally creative, everything else is opinion.” Modern College of William and Mary they may end up in the second category. physicist Richard Feynman was more Williamsburg, Virginia Pseudoscientists, being rejected by the blunt: mainstreamers, misinform the public with assertions that “science revolutionaries Here’s this great Dutch philoso- ‣ Hassani replies: Mario Beauregard, pher [Spinoza], and we’re [Feyn- have also been rejected by mainstreamers, Gary Schwartz, and Natalie Trent associ- man and his son] laughing at as we have.” Nothing is further from ate several notable physicists with the him...
Recommended publications
  • The Return of Vitalism: Canguilhem and French Biophilosophy in the 1960S

    The Return of Vitalism: Canguilhem and French Biophilosophy in the 1960S

    The Return of Vitalism: Canguilhem and French Biophilosophy in the 1960s Charles T. Wolfe Unit for History and Philosophy of Science University of Sydney [email protected] Abstract The eminent French biologist and historian of biology, François Jacob, once notoriously declared ―On n‘interroge plus la vie dans les laboratoires‖1: laboratory research no longer inquires into the notion of ‗Life‘. Nowadays, as David Hull puts it, ―both scientists and philosophers take ontological reduction for granted… Organisms are ‗nothing but‘ atoms, and that is that.‖2 In the mid-twentieth century, from the immediate post-war period to the late 1960s, French philosophers of science such as Georges Canguilhem, Raymond Ruyer and Gilbert Simondon returned to Jacob‘s statement with an odd kind of pathos: they were determined to reverse course. Not by imposing a different kind of research program in laboratories, but by an unusual combination of historical and philosophical inquiry into the foundations of the life sciences (particularly medicine, physiology and the cluster of activities that were termed ‗biology‘ in the early 1800s). Even in as straightforwardly scholarly a work as La formation du concept de réflexe aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (1955), Canguilhem speaks oddly of ―defending vitalist biology,‖ and declares that Life cannot be grasped by logic (or at least, ―la vie déconcerte la logique‖). Was all this historical and philosophical work merely a reassertion of ‗mysterian‘, magical vitalism? In order to answer this question we need to achieve some perspective on Canguilhem‘s ‗vitalism‘, notably with respect to its philosophical influences such as Kurt Goldstein.
  • Philosophy, Science, Antiscience the Institute of Philosophy Summer School 2020 Zagreb, 15-17 June 2020

    Philosophy, Science, Antiscience the Institute of Philosophy Summer School 2020 Zagreb, 15-17 June 2020

    Philosophy, Science, Antiscience The Institute of Philosophy Summer School 2020 Zagreb, 15-17 June 2020 MONDAY 9.30-10.00 Registration 10.00-13.00 Course 1 Dr. Luka Boršić (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb) Anti-Aristotelianism and the Emergence of Modern Science 13.00-16.00 Break 16.00-19.00 Course 2 Professor Robert J. Hankinson (University of Texas at Austin) Physics, Mathematics, and Explanation in Aristotle TUESDAY 10.00-13.00 Course 3 Dr. Ivana Skuhala Karasman (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb) Astrology: From Science to Pseudoscience 13.00-15.00 Break 15.00-18.00 Course 4 Professor Jure Zovko (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb / University of Zadar) Does Relativism Threaten the Sciences? WEDNESDAY 10.00-13.00 Course 5 Dr. Marija Brajdić Vuković (Institute of Social Research, Zagreb) What is an Expert? Scientific and Public Controversies 13.00-15.00 Break 15.00-18.00 Course 6 Professor Luca Malatesti (University of Rijeka) Science in the Courtroom. Some Conceptual and Methodological Issues in Transferring Neuropsychological Science in the Insanity Defence 18:00-18:30 Break 1 18.30-20.00 Closing Lecture Professor Darko Polšek (Department of Anthropology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Zagreb) Science: Good, Bad and Bogus (New Challenges!) 2 COURSE 1 Anti-Aristotelianism and the Emergence of Modern Science INSTRUCTOR Dr. Luka Boršić (Institute of Philosophy, Zagreb) ABSTRACT We are going to inquire into the changes of paradigm that happened notably in the 16th century and which prepared the ground for the emergence of modern science. In more detail we are going to explore the texts of three Renaissance philosophers: Mario Nizolio (De veris principiis), Frane Petrić (Francesco Patrizi, Discussiones peripateticae) and Jacopo Mazzoni (In universam Platonis et Aristotelis philosophiam praeludia).
  • Vitalism and the Scientific Image: an Introduction

    Vitalism and the Scientific Image: an Introduction

    Vitalism and the scientific image: an introduction Sebastian Normandin and Charles T. Wolfe Vitalism and the scientific image in post-Enlightenment life science, 1800-2010 Edited by Sebastian Normandin and Charles T. Wolfe Springer, forthcoming 2013 To undertake a history of vitalism at this stage in the development of the ‘biosciences’, theoretical and other, is a stimulating prospect. We have entered the age of ‘synthetic’ life, and our newfound capacities prompt us to consider new levels of analysis and understanding. At the same time, it is possible to detect a growing level of interest in vitalistic and organismic themes, understood in a broadly naturalistic context and approached, not so much from broader cultural concerns as in the early twentieth century, as from scientific interests – or interests lying at the boundaries or liminal spaces of what counts as ‘science’.1 The challenge of understanding or theorizing vitalism in the era of the synthetic is not unlike that posed by early nineteenth-century successes in chemistry allowing for the synthesis of organic compounds (Wöhler), except that now, whether the motivation is molecular-chemical, embryological or physiological,2 we find ourselves asking fundamental questions anew. What is life? How does it differ from non-living matter? What are the fundamental processes that characterize the living? What philosophical and epistemological considerations are raised by our new understandings?3 We are driven to consider, for example, what metaphors we use to describe living processes as our knowledge of them changes, not least since some of the opprobrium surrounding the term ‘vitalism’ is also a matter of language: of which terms one 1 Gilbert and Sarkar 2000, Laublichler 2000.
  • Demystifying the Placebo Effect

    Demystifying the Placebo Effect

    City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 9-2018 Demystifying the Placebo Effect Phoebe Friesen The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/2775 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] DEMYSTIFYING THE PLACEBO EFFECT by PHOEBE FRIESEN A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2018 © 2018 PHOEBE FRIESEN All Rights Reserved ii Demystifying the Placebo Effect by Phoebe Friesen This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ___________ ____________________________________ Date [Peter Godfrey-Smith] Chair of Examining Committee ___________ ____________________________________ Date [Nickolas Pappas ] Executive Office Supervisory Committee: Peter Godfrey-Smith Jesse Prinz John Greenwood THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iii ABSTRACT Demystifying the Placebo Effect by Phoebe Friesen Advisor: Peter Godfrey-Smith This dissertation offers a philosophical analysis of the placebo effect. After offering an overview of recent evidence concerning the phenomenon, I consider several prominent accounts of the placebo effect that have been put forward and argue that none of them are able to adequately account for the diverse instantiations of the phenomenon. I then offer a novel account, which suggests that we ought to think of the placebo effect as encompassing three distinct responses: conditioned placebo responses, cognitive placebo responses, and network placebo responses.
  • Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness

    Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness

    JCS-ONLINE http://www.imprint.co.uk/online/HP_dennett.html Facing Backwards on the Problem of Consciousness Daniel C. Dennett Center for Cognitive Studies Tufts University Medford MA 02155 USA Journal of Consciousness Studies, 3 (1), 1996, pp. 4-6 The strategy of divide and conquer is usually an excellent one, but it all depends on how you do the carving. Chalmer's (1995) attempt to sort the `easy' problems of consciousness from the `really hard' problem is not, I think, a useful contribution to research, but a major misdirector of attention, an illusion-generator. How could this be? Let me describe two somewhat similar strategic proposals, and compare them to Chalmers' recommendation. 1. The hard question for vitalism Imagine some vitalist who says to the molecular biologists: The easy problems of life include those of explaining the following phenomena: reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self-repair, immunological self-defence . These are not all that easy, of course, and it may take another century or so to work out the fine points, but they are easy compared to the really hard problem: life itself. We can imagine something that was capable of reproduction, development, growth, metabolism, self-repair and immunological self-defence, but that wasn't, you know, alive. The residual mystery of life would be untouched by solutions to all the easy problems. In fact, when I read your accounts of life, I am left feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch. This imaginary vitalist just doesn't see how the solution to all the easy problems amounts to a solution to the imagined hard problem.
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 104 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 142 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1996 No. 76 Senate The Senate was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Monday, June 3, 1996, at 1:30 p.m. House of Representatives WEDNESDAY, MAY 29, 1996 The House met at 2 p.m. and was THE JOURNAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE called to order by the Speaker pro tem- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The CLERK OF THE HOUSE pore [Ms. GREENE of Utah]. Chair has examined the Journal of the The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- f last day's proceedings and announces fore the House the following commu- to the House his approval thereof. nication from the Clerk of the House of Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the Jour- Representatives: DESIGNATION OF THE SPEAKER nal stand as approved. PRO TEMPORE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, pur- Washington, DC, May 28, 1996. The SPEAKER pro tempore laid be- suant to clause 1, rule I, I demand a Hon. NEWT GINGRICH, fore the House the following commu- vote on agreeing to the Speaker's ap- The Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, nication from the Speaker: proval of the Journal. Washington, DC. DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Pursuant to the per- WASHINGTON, DC, The SPEAKER pro tempore. The May 29, 1996. mission granted in Clause 5 of Rule III of the question is on the Chair's approval of Rules of the U.S.
  • Middle-Ground Pragmatists: the Popularization of Philosophy in American Culture

    Middle-Ground Pragmatists: the Popularization of Philosophy in American Culture

    284 GeorgeCotkin to have culturalinfluence, then the philosopherhad to make his work accessibleto a widerpublic. The diffusionof suchknowledge was a neces-neces­ saryprecondition for democratic social reconstruction. The popularizationof pragmatism in the period after the First World War helpedto createa new formof pragmatism, "middle-ground" pragmatism. If middlebrowculture attempted to balance demandsfor accessibilitywith qualityand to reconcile authority with democracy, then middle-ground popu-popu­ larpragmatists wanted to retainthe essentials of pragmatism as developedby Dewey whilebeing open to new thinkersand concepts,especially those of GeorgeSantayana and the"tragic sense of life."3While continuing through-through­ outthe mid-mid-1920s 1920s to speakin thefamiliar language of social reconstruction, criticalintelligence, and scientificmethod, middle-ground pragmatists in-in­ creasinglyemphasized a stanceof moderationand distancelater made fa-fa­ mousin WalterLippmann's A Prefaceto Morals (1929). Middle-groundpragmatists also helpedto definethe chastened liberal-liberal­ ismthat dominated American intellectual life in thelate 1940s and 1950s. It has becomea commonplacein chartingthe history of American intellectuals to focuson how ReinholdNiebuhr, Daniel Bell, Lionel Trilling,and others, out of disillusionmentwith Marxism,adopted a new form of liberalism markedby irony, restraint, and disdain for utopian visions of social recon-recon­ struction. Rather than intending to refute the importance of this sea-change in thought,this essay suggests that middle-ground pragmatists antedated the move towardchastened liberalism by well over a decade, without any sustained engagement with radical politics.politics.4 4 Middle-ground pragmatism proved to be an appealing position because it allowed young intellectuals to popularize philosophical ideas and to battle against the insufficiencies of American cultural life in the 1920s.
  • Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, Or Antiscience?

    Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, Or Antiscience?

    Behav Analysis Practice DOI 10.1007/s40617-016-0108-1 DISCUSSION AND REVIEW PAPER Social Thinking®: Science, Pseudoscience, or Antiscience? Justin B. Leaf1 & Alyne Kassardjian1 & Misty L. Oppenheim-Leaf2 & Joseph H. Cihon1 & Mitchell Taubman1 & Ronald Leaf1 & John McEachin1 # Association for Behavior Analysis International 2016 Abstract Today, there are several interventions that can be has been utilized by behaviorists and non-behaviorists. This implemented with individuals diagnosed with autism spec- commentary will outline Social Thinking® and provide evi- trum disorder. Most of these interventions have limited to no dence that the procedure, at the current time, qualifies as a empirical evidence demonstrating their effectiveness, yet they pseudoscience and, therefore, should not be implemented with are widely implemented in home, school, university, and com- individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, espe- munity settings. In 1996, Green wrote a chapter in which she cially given the availability of alternatives which clearly meet outlined three levels of science: evidence science, pseudosci- the standard of evidence science. ence, and antiscience; professionals were encouraged to im- plement and recommend only those procedures that would be Keywords Applied behavior analysis . Evidence based . considered evidence science. Today, an intervention that is Social behavior . Social thinking . Autism commonly implemented with individuals diagnosed with au- tism spectrum disorder is Social Thinking®. This intervention In 1996, Green wrote a seminal chapter entitled, Evaluating Claims about Treatments for Autism.Inthischapter,Green * Justin B. Leaf described three levels of science (i.e., science, pseudoscience, [email protected] and antiscience) which can be utilized as a guide to evaluate treatments for individuals diagnosed with autism spectrum Alyne Kassardjian disorders (ASD).
  • Pseudoscience and Antiscience in an Age of Science*

    Pseudoscience and Antiscience in an Age of Science*

    THE OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE VOL. 58 SEPTEMBER, 1958 No. 5 PSEUDOSCIENCE AND ANTISCIENCE IN AN AGE OF SCIENCE* WALTER C. KRAATZ Department of Biology, University of Akron, Akron, Ohio This paper is about an unpleasant subject, pseudoscience and antiscience. In this age of enlightenment and of a far-reaching public press, it seems incredible that these are so widespread. Possibly it is as we might expect from the perversity of human prejudice and the lag of the mind of the multitude behind the conceptions of the scientists. Pseudoscience and antiscience are not so distinct as they might seem. The old pseudoscience astrology and the strong antiscientific, antievolution movement which culminated in the antievolution law of Tennessee in 1925 and two other states shortly thereafter, will be cited. Astrology is still rampant. Daily astrological horoscopes are found in our newspapers and in the large magazine stores there are many astrological magazines. They do not appear antiastronomical and may seem to be a harmless absurdity. But try to show this absuridity to a confirmed believer and you will recognize the antiscience which animates him. In the antievolution movement there developed a strong pseudoscience. I refer not to the view of a large number of people, who, unaware of the nature and evolution of man and the universe, more or less feel they do not care about evolution or feel that evolution is irreligious. Instead, I refer to a relatively small number who write plausible tracts and books to be read by the aforementioned large group. For the most part these writers understand only a few of the facts.
  • The Demon Haunted World

    The Demon Haunted World

    THE DEMON- HAUNTED WORLD Science as a Candle in the Dark CARL SAGAN BALLANTINE BOOKS • NEW YORK Preface MY TEACHERS It was a blustery fall day in 1939. In the streets outside the apartment building, fallen leaves were swirling in little whirlwinds, each with a life of its own. It was good to be inside and warm and safe, with my mother preparing dinner in the next room. In our apartment there were no older kids who picked on you for no reason. Just the week be- fore, I had been in a fight—I can't remember, after all these years, who it was with; maybe it was Snoony Agata from the third floor— and, after a wild swing, I found I had put my fist through the plate glass window of Schechter's drug store. Mr. Schechter was solicitous: "It's all right, I'm insured," he said as he put some unbelievably painful antiseptic on my wrist. My mother took me to the doctor whose office was on the ground floor of our building. With a pair of tweezers, he pulled out a fragment of glass. Using needle and thread, he sewed two stitches. "Two stitches!" my father had repeated later that night. He knew about stitches, because he was a cutter in the garment industry; his job was to use a very scary power saw to cut out patterns—backs, say, or sleeves for ladies' coats and suits—from an enormous stack of cloth. Then the patterns were conveyed to endless rows of women sitting at sewing machines.
  • Sociology: Proscience Or Antiscience? Author(S): Randall Collins Source: American Sociological Review, Vol

    Sociology: Proscience Or Antiscience? Author(S): Randall Collins Source: American Sociological Review, Vol

    Sociology: Proscience or Antiscience? Author(s): Randall Collins Source: American Sociological Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Feb., 1989), pp. 124-139 Published by: American Sociological Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095666 Accessed: 02/06/2009 08:18 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Sociological Review. http://www.jstor.org SOCIOLOGY: PROSCIENCE OR ANTISCIENCE?* RANDALL COLLINS Universityof California-Riverside Criticisms of the scientific status of sociology possess some validity when applied against narrowlypositivist interpretationsof sociological methodsand metatheory, but do not underminethe scientific project offormulating generalized explanatory models.
  • Vitalism in Contemporary Chiropractic: a Help Or a Hinderance? J

    Vitalism in Contemporary Chiropractic: a Help Or a Hinderance? J

    Simpson and Young Chiropractic & Manual Therapies (2020) 28:35 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00307-8 DEBATE Open Access Vitalism in contemporary chiropractic: a help or a hinderance? J. Keith Simpson1 and Kenneth J. Young2* Abstract Background: Chiropractic emerged in 1895 and was promoted as a viable health care substitute in direct competition with the medical profession. This was an era when there was a belief that one cause and one cure for all disease would be discovered. The chiropractic version was a theory that most diseases were caused by subluxated (slightly displaced) vertebrae interfering with “nerve vibrations” (a supernatural, vital force) and could be cured by adjusting (repositioning) vertebrae, thereby removing the interference with the body’s inherent capacity to heal. DD Palmer, the originator of chiropractic, established chiropractic based on vitalistic principles. Anecdotally, the authors have observed that many chiropractors who overtly claim to be “vitalists” cannot define the term. Therefore, we sought the origins of vitalism and to examine its effects on chiropractic today. Discussion: Vitalism arose out of human curiosity around the biggest questions: Where do we come from? What is life? For some, life was derived from an unknown and unknowable vital force. For others, a vital force was a placeholder, a piece of knowledge not yet grasped but attainable. Developments in science have demonstrated there is no longer a need to invoke vitalistic entities as either explanations or hypotheses for biological phenomena. Nevertheless, vitalism remains within chiropractic. In this examination of vitalism within chiropractic we explore the history of vitalism, vitalism within chiropractic and whether a vitalistic ideology is compatible with the legal and ethical requirements for registered health care professionals such as chiropractors.