从创造论到经济学:伪科学的分析应该延伸到什么程度?

IF 0.4 Q3 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Metode Science Studies Journal Pub Date : 2017-12-18 DOI:10.7203/METODE.8.10001
T. Edis
{"title":"从创造论到经济学:伪科学的分析应该延伸到什么程度?","authors":"T. Edis","doi":"10.7203/METODE.8.10001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Both the scientific and philosophical problems with classic pseudosciences such as astrology and creationism are well known, leading to institutions that are not structured to promote cognitive advancement. A focus on institutions, however, also encourages recognition of gray areas, such as parapsychology, which combines scientifically dubious claims with institutions that are comparable to most social sciences in their structure. Furthermore, institutional approaches to pseudoscience also raise questions about some academically mainstream fields such as economics. In such cases, pseudoscientific aspects of practice are harder to identify, highlighting the need to place analyses of pseudoscience in a wider context of institutional pathologies.","PeriodicalId":41648,"journal":{"name":"Metode Science Studies Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"140-147"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From creationism to economics: how far should analyses of pseudoscience extend?\",\"authors\":\"T. Edis\",\"doi\":\"10.7203/METODE.8.10001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Both the scientific and philosophical problems with classic pseudosciences such as astrology and creationism are well known, leading to institutions that are not structured to promote cognitive advancement. A focus on institutions, however, also encourages recognition of gray areas, such as parapsychology, which combines scientifically dubious claims with institutions that are comparable to most social sciences in their structure. Furthermore, institutional approaches to pseudoscience also raise questions about some academically mainstream fields such as economics. In such cases, pseudoscientific aspects of practice are harder to identify, highlighting the need to place analyses of pseudoscience in a wider context of institutional pathologies.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41648,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Metode Science Studies Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"140-147\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Metode Science Studies Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7203/METODE.8.10001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Metode Science Studies Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7203/METODE.8.10001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

占星术和神创论等经典伪科学的科学和哲学问题都是众所周知的,导致了一些机构的结构无法促进认知进步。然而,对机构的关注也鼓励人们认识到灰色地带,比如副心理学,它将科学上可疑的主张与结构上与大多数社会科学相当的机构结合在一起。此外,伪科学的制度方法也对经济学等一些学术主流领域提出了质疑。在这种情况下,实践中的伪科学方面更难识别,这突出了将伪科学分析放在更广泛的制度病理背景下的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From creationism to economics: how far should analyses of pseudoscience extend?
Both the scientific and philosophical problems with classic pseudosciences such as astrology and creationism are well known, leading to institutions that are not structured to promote cognitive advancement. A focus on institutions, however, also encourages recognition of gray areas, such as parapsychology, which combines scientifically dubious claims with institutions that are comparable to most social sciences in their structure. Furthermore, institutional approaches to pseudoscience also raise questions about some academically mainstream fields such as economics. In such cases, pseudoscientific aspects of practice are harder to identify, highlighting the need to place analyses of pseudoscience in a wider context of institutional pathologies.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Metode Science Studies Journal
Metode Science Studies Journal HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊最新文献
MORE BIODIVERSITY TO IMPROVE OUR HEALTH The benefits to human well-being of favouring functional and diverse ecosystems Citizen consultations on science communication: A citizen science approach The plants of the future. Genome editing in biotechnology Standards. The building blocks of complexity Good to eat. Food and health at a time of information overload
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1