DOCSLIB.ORG

Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem (Late XX – Early XXI Centuries)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 7 (2014 7) 1234-1248 ~ ~ ~ УДК 167/168 Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem (Late XX – Early XXI Centuries) Svetlana A. Iarovenko* and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva Siberian State Technological University 82 Mira, Krasnoyarsk, 660049, Russia Received 12.03.2014, received in revised form 16.05.2014, accepted 29.05.2014 The article presents a review of predominantly Russian literature dedicated to the problem of relations between science and parascience, states various points of view on the structure of extra-scientific knowledge and the place parascience occupies in it. Recourse to the current problem is caused by its openness, absence of clear classifications and definitions of parascientific knowledge as such, which leads to the necessity of the present explication. The article summarizes the experience of teaching “Science and Parascience” topic in the lecture course for post-graduates and external PhD students “Philosophy of Science”. Keywords: science, scientific knowledge, demarcation of scientific and non-scientific knowledge, abnormal knowledge, parascience, pseudoscience, protoscience, anti-science, quasi-science, deviant science. Introduction Modern literature reflexively admits the The question “Science and Parascience” fact of disagreement in the use of the term is included into Topic No.7 “Peculiarities of extra-scientific knowledge, absence of clear modern science development. Prospective of semantic certainty and distinctive boundaries progress in science and technology” of the self- of the notion, terminological inconsistency of preparation Program for Post-Graduate History definitions and classifications of extra-scientific and Philosophy of Science Qualification Exam knowledge. It offers various solutions for the for post-graduates and external PhD students. problem of terminological inconsistency. Thus, The evident theoretical and practical significance N.I. Martishina considers it rational to draw a of the issue on one hand and the inconsistency of boundary between the common term of extra- its treatment in literature on the other substantiate scientific knowledge and its use for defining a the need for a special study. The purpose of the particular sphere of knowledge, disclaiming present publication is the review of late 20th – any scientific status trivial,( religious, artistic, early 19th century’s literature on the problem philosophic, mythological knowledge etc.), of meaning and composition of parascientific while defining the multitude of non-scientific knowledge. knowledge forms inclined to the status of science © Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved * Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected] – 1234 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… (popular science, parascience, pseudoscience, religion, magic etc., each of which is an exciting antiscience etc.), with the term would-be scientific object for an independent research. In the present knowledge (Martishina, 1996). The opinion case we join the opinion formulated in “Cognitive of V.A. Lektorskiy is similar: he connects the Foundation of Parascience”: in a general sense, process of science institutionalization with extra-scientific knowledge encompasses all its essential separation from extra-scientific types of cognition found beyond the boundaries knowledge (trivial knowledge, art etc.) which of science (religious, artistic, mythological, does not claim to be scientific, and with opposition trivial etc.); the term parascience is applied to to pseudoscience which claims to be science a narrower group of would-be science forms of (Lektorskiy, 1996). It thereby establishes a cognition modeling only few of the properties certain primary classification of knowledge types typical of science (Martishina, 1996). that stretch beyond the boundaries of science. It is necessary to admit, that various options of 1. Science and Parascience: defining theextra-scientific knowledgeterm itself Border Conflict Reflection are extremely efficient for solving the problem of If the self-sufficiency of the main extra- demarcation between science and non-science. scientificforms of knowledge, such as philosophy, According to one of the reputable non- religion, or art, allows them to avoid identifying scientific cognition researchers I.T. Kasavin, themselves with science to increase their own development of cultural pluralism idea is authenticity (or, at least, not to claim for it), then unthinkable within the strict opposition of science the sphere of knowledge conventionally referred to another form of cognitive activity. Kasavin is to as parascience, on the opposite, is fighting for convinced, that in the situation of tolerance in recognition and admittance of its evidence as modern sociocultural reflection, the dominating legitimate through obtaining the scientific status. philosophical paradigm in the cognition theory In the name parascience, the denotation shall be: admittance of historical variability of and the concept conflict with each other due to scientific criteria and legitimate status of diverse its negatively-attitudinal valence and correlation extra-scientific knowledge, unacceptability of with the term science. A derivative, secondary knowledge property evaluation from the positions origin of parascience term created by affixing of scientized dogmatic rationality principles. This the root science with the noun functor, prefix is the philosophy which intends to substantiate para- (anti-, quasi-, pseudo- etc.) demonstrates the status of normal knowledge in the enormous the principal “attitudinalness”, derivativeness valuable mass of non-scientific experience of the term, the actual absence of an adequate (Kasavin, 1990). term to generalize the phenomena referred to as It is essential to remark, that, though the parascientific phenomena. theoretic parascience analysis is carried out in Scientized world outlook prefers denying the context of general ratio of science to extra- the “believe-it-or-not” evidence which cannot scientific knowledge, the term parascience is be yet assimilated at the modern level of interpreted in a narrower sense than extra- science development. Denial is another way of scientific knowledge,and, therefore, the insight is psychological defense, the use of which is caused limited to parascience-related. It eliminates from by the habit of scientist culture to cut itself off the our sight a whole range of such extra-science so-called parascientific with the shield walls of phenomena as trivial cognition, esoterism, logocentrism. – 1235 – Svetlana A. Iarovenko and Aleksandra S. Cherniaeva. Science and Parascience: Review of Literature on the Problem… All publications on the problem of any knowledge, alternative not even to the science non-scientific (antiscientific, pseudoscientific, itself, but to Enlightenment as such, outlining mock-scientific, quasi-scientific, alternative such types of antiscience as pathological etc.) knowledge admit the impossibility of science (concepts borne by knowingly ideas and clear distinction and differentiation between suggestions), pseudoscience (concepts obviously these terms. A serious challenge for clarifying contradicting the fundamental scientific facts) the epistemological nature of parascience and scientism (superoptimism in evaluating phenomenon is the absence of universality and the power of science). V.P. Filatov subdivides certainty in understanding the meaning of the would-be science into unspecialized (everyday term, and the absence of serious systematization experience, popular science etc.) and specialized and classification of such notions, asparascientific, knowledge, which, in its turn, is structured into pseudoscientific, alternative, quasi-scientific, paranormal science (theories of secret powers of mock-scientific, anti-scientific etc. knowledge. nature underlying ordinary natural phenomena); For this reason it is necessary to describe some pseudoscience (concepts claiming to be (more or less successful) attempts made in scientific, but unfulfilling the cognitive scientific clarifying the meaning and classification of these criteria); deviant science (researches by marginal notions. It goes without saying that the selection scientists based on alternative programs). V.V. between the listed opinions is always judgmental Ilyin outlines the following components of and restricted due to the immensity of researches would-be science sphere: non-scientific forms dedicated to the problem, while the statement of of cognitive activity (practical-routine, artistic the opinions themselves is usually brief. etc.); prescience (protoknowledge); mock-science It is universally admitted, that terminological (prejudice camouflaged into science);parascience distinction between certain types of would-be- (knowledge unfulfilling scientific criteria in its science knowledge (according to the classification epistemological status); anti-science (intentional offered by N.I. Martishina), particularly distortion of the scientific world view). M.R. popular science, protoscience, parascience, Zhbankov subdivides would-be scientific pseudoscience, mock-science etc. is not adequately knowledge into: protoscience (attempts to substantiated. These terms are used by multiple create an integrative scientific outlook under the authors, and each author uses them in a different conditions of information deficit); pseudoscience meaning.
Recommended publications
  • 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).
  • Some Observations on Avoiding Pitfalls in Developing Future Flight Systems

    Some Observations on Avoiding Pitfalls in Developing Future Flight Systems

    AIAA 97-3209 Some Observations on Avoiding Pitfalls in Developing Future Flight Systems Gary L. Bennett Metaspace Enterprises Emmett, Idaho; U.S.A. 33rd AIAA/ASME/SAEIASEEJoint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit July 6 - 9, 1997 I Seattle, WA For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA 22091 SOME OBSERVATIONS ON AVOIDING PITFALLS IN DEVELOPING FUTURE FLIGHT SYSTEMS Gary L. Bennett* 5000 Butte Road Emmett, Idaho 83617-9500 Abstract Given the speculative proposals and the interest in A number of programs and concepts have been developing breakthrough propulsion systems it seems proposed 10 achieve breakthrough propulsion. As an prudent and appropriate to review some of the pitfalls cautionary aid 10 researchers in breakthrough that have befallen other programs in "speculative propulsion or other fields of advanced endeavor, case science" so that similar pitfalls can be avoided in the histories of potential pitfalls in scientific research are future. And, given the interest in UFO propulsion, described. From these case histories some general some guidelines to use in assessing the reality of UFOs characteristics of erroneous science are presented. will also be presented. Guidelines for assessing exotic propulsion systems are suggested. The scientific method is discussed and some This paper will summarize some of the principal tools for skeptical thinking are presented. Lessons areas of "speculative science" in which researchers learned from a recent case of erroneous science are were led astray and it will then provide an overview of listed. guidelines which, if implemented, can greatly reduce Introduction the occurrence of errors in research.
  • 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.
  • Downloading Physics Preprints from Arxiv Would Be Quite Unaware That a Paper in General Physics Has to Be Treated Differently to Papers in Other Categories

    Downloading Physics Preprints from Arxiv Would Be Quite Unaware That a Paper in General Physics Has to Be Treated Differently to Papers in Other Categories

    1 The Ecology of Fringe Science and its Bearing on Policy Harry Collins, Andrew Bartlett and Luis Reyes-Galindo School of Social Sciences, Cardiff University1 emails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Introduction Fringe science has been an important topic since the start of the revolution in the social studies of science that occurred in the early 1970s.2 As a softer-edged model of the sciences developed, fringe science was a ‘hard case’ on which to hammer out the idea that scientific truth was whatever came to count as scientific truth: scientific truth emerged from social closure. The job of those studying fringe science was to recapture the rationality of its proponents, showing how, in terms of the procedures of science, they could be right and the mainstream could be wrong and therefore the consensus position is formed by social agreement. One outcome of this way of thinking is that sociologists of science informed by the perspective outlined above find themselves short of argumentative resources for demarcating science from non-science. The distinction with traditional philosophy of science, which readily demarcates fringe subjects such as parapsychology by referring to their ‘irrationality’ or some such, is marked.3 For the sociologist of scientific knowledge, that kind of demarcation comprises 1 This paper is joint work by researchers supported by two grants: ESRC to Harry Collins, (RES/K006401/1) £277,184, What is scientific consensus for policy? Heartlands and hinterlands of physics (2014-2016); British Academy Post-Doctoral Fellowship to Luis Reyes-Galindo, (PF130024) £223,732, The social boundaries of scientific knowledge: a case study of 'green' Open Access (2013-2016).
  • Twenty-First Century American Ghost Hunting: a Late Modern Enchantment

    Twenty-First Century American Ghost Hunting: a Late Modern Enchantment

    Twenty-First Century American Ghost Hunting: A Late Modern Enchantment Daniel S. Wise New Haven, CT Bachelor oF Arts, Florida State University, 2010 Master oF Arts, Florida State University, 2012 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty oF the University oF Virginia in Candidacy For the Degree oF Doctor oF Philosophy Department oF Religious Studies University oF Virginia November, 2020 Committee Members: Erik Braun Jack Hamilton Matthew S. Hedstrom Heather A. Warren Contents Acknowledgments 3 Chapter 1 Introduction 5 Chapter 2 From Spiritualism to Ghost Hunting 27 Chapter 3 Ghost Hunting and Scientism 64 Chapter 4 Ghost Hunters and Demonic Enchantment 96 Chapter 5 Ghost Hunters and Media 123 Chapter 6 Ghost Hunting and Spirituality 156 Chapter 7 Conclusion 188 Bibliography 196 Acknowledgments The journey toward competing this dissertation was longer than I had planned and sometimes bumpy. In the end, I Feel like I have a lot to be thankFul For. I received graduate student Funding From the University oF Virginia along with a travel grant that allowed me to attend a ghost hunt and a paranormal convention out oF state. The Skinner Scholarship administered by St. Paul’s Memorial Church in Charlottesville also supported me For many years. I would like to thank the members oF my committee For their support and For taking the time to comb through this dissertation. Thank you Heather Warren, Erik Braun, and Jack Hamilton. I especially want to thank my advisor Matthew Hedstrom. He accepted me on board even though I took the unconventional path oF being admitted to UVA to study Judaism and Christianity in antiquity.
  • Searching for SETI: the Social Construction of Aliens and the Quest for a Technological Mythos

    Searching for SETI: the Social Construction of Aliens and the Quest for a Technological Mythos

    Searching for SETI: The Social Construction of Aliens and the Quest for a Technological Mythos John Marvin Bozeman Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In Science and Technology Studies Janet A. Abbate, Co-Chair Shannon A. Brown, Co-Chair Lee L. Zwanziger Paul D. Renard March 24, 2015 Falls Church, Virginia Keywords: Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, SETI, Actor Network Theory, Social Construction of Technology, Rational Choice Theory of Religion, Transhumanism, Xenosalvation Copyright John M. Bozeman Searching for SETI: The Social Construction of Aliens and the Quest for a Technological Mythos John M. Bozeman ABSTRACT This dissertation uses Actor Network Theory (ANT) and Stark and Bainbridge’s rational choice theory of religion to analyze an established but controversial branch of science and technology, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI). Of particular interest are the cultural, and sometimes religious, assumptions that its creators have built into it. The purpose of this analysis is not to discredit SETI, but instead to show how SETI, along with other avant-garde scientific projects, is founded, motivated, and propelled by many of the same types of values and visions for the future that motivate the founders of religious groups. I further argue that the utopian zeal found in SETI and similar movements is not aberrant, but instead common, and perhaps necessary, in many early- stage projects, whether technical or spiritual, which lack a clear near-term commercial or social benefit. DEDICATION In memory of my parents, James E.
  • 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.
  • 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).
  • Free Energy Scams

    Free Energy Scams

    Bad Science: Perpetual Motion There have been countless claims by quacks for the last 1200 years that machines could be built that would: # Provide energy with no energy input # Produce more energy than what was input into the system Both are clear violations of the 1st law of thermodynamics! The "Testatika" by Paul Bauman, a German engineer. Perpetuum Mobile of Villard de The device’s operation has been recorded as far back as 1960s at a place called Methernitha (near Berne, Honnecourt (about 1230) Switzerland). Supposedly, the community benefits from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines the invention. [38] “Free Energy” Scams There have also been many claims by con-artists who have claim to have built modern perpetual motion machines or technology that mysteriously extracts energy from the rotation of the earth, magnetic field of the earth, zero-point energy in vacuums, etc. Example: Check out http://www.steorn.com # $100,000 USD ad in “The Economist” claiming that this technology is developed, and they want a panel of scientists to test its validity (all test results will be held secret) # Scientist identities have not been revealed # Work not submitted for peer review, nor has been it been revealed in any form to the academic/research community at large # Incredible PR stunt, no science: the science of the con is to remove you from your wallet as quickly as possible! Pseudoscience & Voodoo science # Most well-trained scientists are extremely skeptical, as theory, experimentation and proof of concept are key elements of proper science Pseudosciences: parapsychology, homeopathy, phrenology, perpetual motion, flat earth, creation science/intelligent design, quantum mysticism, etc.
  • 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.