Scientia falsa

Num aliqua doctrina opinio methodus usus verae scientiae congruat, variis rationibus demonstrari potest. In philosophia scientiae de limitatione vel definitione agitur: scientia vera quomodo a speculatione metaphysica aut a scientia falsa distinguatur, quaestio est. Plura criteria data sunt, nam de uno tantum iudicandi instrumento iter philosophos scientiae non convenit. Eiusmodi enim difficultates habent, qui varios definire temptant usus humanos, sicut artes, nam haec notio aperta habetur, quippe quae renovationes toleret atque operibus novas vias munientibus et fines conceptuales labefactantibus aperta sit. Praeterea methodi et theoriae continuo augentur et mutantur.

Constat physicam scientiam veram et astrologiam specimen pseudoscientiae esse. Inter hs extremitates doctrinae ancipites sunt, sicut psychoanalysis, sophrologia, sociobiologia, parapsychologia experimentalis. Id tamen notandum est etiam extra scientiam inveniri cogitationem rationalem:: cum "science", appellatio Anglica, praesertim ad scientias naturales referatur, sunt etiam "Wissenschaften" (appellatio Theodisca) quae praeter scientias naturales etiam scientiae humanae et sociales complectuntur. In omnibus his adquisitio cognitionis arte et ratione fit.

His ferme indiciis scientia vera a falsa distingui solet:

• usus methodorum quae in experiendo iam fidem meruerunt: quod praeceptum non solum ad scientiam naturalem sed etiam ad artes humanas experimentis nixas convenit; in quibus maximi momenti sunt investigationes statisticae, quippe quae observationibus fidem praestent.
• palam omnibus: in scientia naturali experimentis nixa rationes agendi ita explicantur, ut a quolibet homine repeti possint; in artibus humanioribus fontes et critica fontium fidem adferunt et disputantes a depravationibus continent.
• natura critica: investigatio scientifica, quippe quae in lucem proferatur, iudicio et aestimationi publicae subicitur; praeterea censura veritatis saepe in lucem editioni antecedit.
• sui correctio: ex natura critica consequitur, ut theoriae falsae cum tempore decidant.
• progressio; theoria, si difficultatibus adflicta erit, cedet theoriae quae meliorem explanationem polliceri videtur; nam progressio non semper coacervationem cognitionis significat sed ante omnia ad inventionem theoriarum meliorum prioribus refertur.

• Negatio calefactionis globalis
• Ne falsum quidem
• Occulta
• Rassismus occultus
• Parapsychologia
• Scepticismus scientificus
• Theoria conspirationis

• Andrews, James Pettit, et Robert Henry. 1796. History of Great Britain, from the death of Henry VIII to the accession of James VI of Scotland to the Crown of England. 2 voll. Londinii: T. Cadell et W. Davies.
• Bauer, Henry H. 2000. Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. University of Illinois Press.
• Bowler, Peter J. (2003) Evolution: The History of an Idea (tertium ed.). University of California Press.
• Charpak, Georges, et Henri Broch. 2004 Debunked: ESP, Telekinesis, Other Pseudoscience. Conversus ex Francico a Bart K. Holland. Baltimorae: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801878675. Primum anno 2002 editum nomine Devenez sorciers, devenez savants ab Odile Jacob.
• Cioffi, Frank. 1998. Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience. Sicagi et La Salle Illinoesiae: Open Court, pars Carus. ISBN 081269385X.
• Derksen, A. A. 1993. The seven sins of pseudo-science.^{[nexus deficit]} Journal Gen. Phil. Sci. 24:17–42. DOI 10.1007/BF00769513.
• Derksen, A. A. 2001. The seven strategies of the sophisticated pseudo-scientist: a look into Freud's rhetorical toolbox. Journal Gen. Phil. Sci. 32(2):329–350. DOI 10.1023/A:1013100717113.
• Gardner, Martin. 1957. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Ed. 2a, retractata et augmenta. Mineolae Novi Eboraci: Dover Publications. ISBN 0-486-20394-8.
• Gardner, Martin. 1990. Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus. Prometheus Books. ISBN 0879755733.
• Hansson, Sven Ove. 1996. Defining Pseudoscience. Philosophia Naturalis 33:169–176.
• Hansson, Sven Ove. 2008. Science and Pseudo-Science. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Little, John. 1981. (Iudicium libri Gardner 1957.)^{[nexus deficit]} New Scientist, 29 Octobris, 92 (1277):320.
• Martin, M. 1994. Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education.^{[nexus deficit]} Science et Education 3:1573–901.
• Pratkanis, Anthony R. 1995. How to Sell a Pseudoscience. Skeptical Inquirer 19(4):19–25.
• Schadewald, Robert J. 2008. Worlds of Their Own: A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair. Xlibris. ISBN 9781436304351.
• Shermer, Michael. 1997. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. Novi Eboraci: W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0716730901.
• Shermer, Michael. 2011. What Is Pseudoscience?: Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic. Scientific American, September, p. 92 * Shermer, Michael, et Stephen J. Gould. 2002. Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. Novi Eboraci: Holt Paperbacks. ISBN 0805070893.
• Wilson, F. 2000. The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience. Canadian Scholars Press.
• Wolpert, Lewis. 1994. The Unnatural Nature of Science. Cantabrigiae: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674929802. Primum editus 1992 sumptibus Faber & Faber.

• Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscience, Robertus Todd Carroll
• Pseudoscience. What is it? How can I recognize it?, Stephanus Lower
• Science and Pseudoscience, Imre Lakatos
• Science and Pseudo-Science: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Science Needs to Combat Pseudoscience, 32 scientistiae et philosophi Russici
• Skeptic Dictionary: Pseudoscientific topics and discussion, Robertus Todd Carroll
• Why Is Pseudoscience Dangerous?, Eduardus Kruglyakov