PAULA THAGARDA KRYTERIA DEMARKACJI

• Authors: Zenon Roskal

Title variants

EN

PAUL THAGARD’S DEMARCATION CRITERIA

• Languages of publication: PL

Abstracts

EN

In Paul Thagard’s article “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience”, we might find some demarcation criteria which are best used in determining whether certain fields with a lot of practitioners can be claimed to be pseudoscientific. Theory T for the pseudoscience club is if T has long been less progressive than its competitors and faces many more unsolved problems; and, adherents to T do not try to develop the theory to solve puzzles, do not attempt to evaluate T with respect to its alternatives, and are highly reserved and selective in seeking confirmation and falsification. Ten years later Thagard gave us new proposals. If T is a pseudoscience, then it is usually the case that (1) T is neither simple nor unified; the explanations, resources, (2) and predictions of T tend to be ad hoc, spurious, or ill-fitted to the rest of T; or, (3) adherents to T do not try to develop the theory to solve puzzles, do not attempt to evaluate T with respect to competitors, and (4) are highly reserved and selective in seeking confirmation and falsification. In this article, Paul Thagard’s criteria of demarcation are examined and evaluated from the point of view of the history of astrology.

Keywords

PL

astrologia; filozofia nauki; filozofia przyrody; problem demarkacji; pseudonauka

EN

astrology; philosophy of science; philosophy of nature; demarcation problem; pseudo-science.

• Publisher: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
• Journal: Roczniki Filozoficzne
• Year: 2014
• Volume: 62
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 25-36

Contributors

author

Zenon Roskal

• Wydział Filozofii Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego Jana Pawła II

References

• Amsterdamski S.: Między doświadczeniem a metafizyką. Warszawa: KiW 1973.
• Arroyo S.: Astrology, Psychology, and the Four Elements. An Energy Approach to Astrology and Its Use in the Counceling Arts. CRCS Publications 1975.
• Ankerberg J.: Weldon J.: Astrology. Do the Heavens rule our destiny? Eugene: Harvest House Publishers 1989.
• Bronk A.: Filozofia i nauka: problem demarkacji. ,,Roczniki Filozoficzne’’ 43: 1995 z. 1 s. 181-236.
• Culver R. B., Ianna P. A.: The Gemini Syndrome. A scientific Evaluation of Astrology. New York: Prometheus Books 19842.
• Culver R. B., Ianna P. A.: Astrology true or false? A scientific evaluation. New York: Prometheus Books 1988.
• Currey R.: U-turn in Carlson’s astrology test? ,,Correlation’’ 2011 nr 2 s. 7-33.
• Curry P.: Prophecy and Power. Astrology in Early Modern England. Princeton: Princeton University Press 1989.
• Dean G, Kelly I. W.: Does astrology work? Astrology and skepticism 1975–2000 W: P. Kurtz (Ed.) Skeptical Odysseys. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books 2001 s. 191–207.
• Ertel S.: Appraisal of Shawn Carlson’s Renowned Astrology Tests.,,Journal of Scientific Exploration’’ 2009 nr 2 s. 125–137.
• Feher S.: Who Looks to the Stars? Astrology and Its Constituency. ,,Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion’’ 1992 nr 1 s. 88-93.
• Jodkowski K.: Wspólnoty uczonych, paradygmaty i rewolucje naukowe. Lublin: Wydawnictwo UMCS 1990.
• Jodkowski K.: Paradygmat i wspólnotowy charakter uprawiania nauki w ujęciu Thomasa S. Kuhna, ,,Annales UMCS Sectio I, Philosophia-Sociologia’’ 1983 s. 41-56.
• Jóźwiak W.: Wiedza nie całkiem tajemna. Białystok 2004.
• Laudan L.: The Demise of the Demarcation Problem. W: R.S. Cohen, L. Laudan (eds.). Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis: Essays in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Co. 1983 s. 111-127.
• Lemay R.: Abu Masar and latin Aristotelism in the twelfth century. Beirut 1962.
• List Ch.: Science and Pseudoscience: Criteria of Demarcation. ,,Reason Papers’’ 1982 nr 8 s. 49-58.
• McGrew J., McFall R.: A Scientific Inquiry Into the Validity of Astrology. ,,Journal of Scientific Exploration” 1990 nr 1 s. 75-83.
• Paine A.:Mark Twain, a biography: the personal and literary life of Samuel Langhorne Clemens.New York:Harper & Brothers 1912.
• Piotrowski P.: Reguły astrologii tradycyjnej. Białystok 2011.
• Roskal Z.: Kontrowersyjność astrologii prognostycznej (preliminaria). ,,Studia Leopoliensia’’ 2012 nr 5 s. 49-58.
• Rawlins D.: The Neptune Conspiracy: British Astronomy's Post-Discovery Discovery. ,,DIO. The Journal for Hysterical Astronomy’’ 1992 nr 3 s. 115-142.
• Sady W.: O tym, co decyduje o naukowości badań przyrodniczych. ,,Studia PhilosophicaWratislaviensia’’2011 nr 2 s. 15-31.
• Sady W.:Odkrywanie elektronu a pytanie o naturę badań naukowych. ,,Filozofia Nauki’’2011 nr3s. 71-105.
• Sady W.: Dlaczego odkrycie promieni X przez Roentgena było naukowe?,,Przegląd Filozoficzny - Nowa Seria’’ 2004 nr 3 s. 7-20.
• Thagard P.:Why Astrology Is A Pseudoscience ,,Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association Philosophy of Science Association’’1978 nr 1 s. 223-234.
• Thagard P.: Computational Philosophy of Science. Cambridge, MA:Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1988.
• Thagard P.: Coherence, Truth, and the Development of Scientific Knowledge ,,Philosophy of Science’’ 2007 nr 1 s. 28-47.
• Uslu F.: Ongoing Debate: How Can We Demarcate Science From Non-Science? ,,Advances in Education Research’’ 2013 nr 19 s. 285-288.
• Weres L., Prinke R.: Mandala życia. Astrologia mity i rzeczywistość. Łódź: Ravi 1994.
• Whitfield P.: Astrology. A History. London: The British Library 2001.
• Z badań nad prawdą, nauką i poznaniem. Red. Z. Muszyński. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej 1998 s. 63-79.

Identifiers

ISSN

0035-7685