伪科学：修订间差异

求闻百科，共笔求闻
以互动方式浏览历史
添加的内容 删除的内容
可视化wikitext
小 （机器人：自动替换模板（来源模板））
小 （移除无用链接）
第30行： 第30行：


=== 批评 ===
=== 批评 ===
科学哲学家，如[[保罗·费耶阿本德]]，辩称在科学和非科学之间做明确的划分是不可能、也是理想的。<ref>Feyerabend, P.（1975）''Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge'' ISBN 978-0-86091-646-8 [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm Table of contents and final chapter] .</ref><ref name="Gauch2003">{{cite book|first=H.G.|last=Gauch|year=2003|title=Scientific Method in Practice|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521017084|lccn=2002022271|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iVkugqNG9dAC&pg=PA88|page=88|quote=A particularly radical reinterpretation of science comes from Paul Feyerabend, "the worst enemy of science"... Like Lakatos, Feyerabend was also a student under Popper. In an interview with Feyerabend in ''Science'', [he says] "Equal weight... should be given to competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupunture, and witchcraft..."|access-date=2014-01-05|archive-date=2016-05-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160515215107/https://books.google.com/books?id=iVkugqNG9dAC&pg=PA88|dead-url=no}}</ref>在这个问题上，划分界限之所以困难是由于科学理论和方法论在新数据影响下不断进化的缘故。<ref>Thagard PR (1978) "Why astrology is a pseudoscience"（1978）In PSA 1978, Volume 1, ed. Asquith PD and Hacking I（East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978）223 ff. Thagard writes, at 227, 228: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and non confirmations."</ref>除此之外，适用于一种领域标准可能不适用于另一领域。
科学哲学家，如[[保罗·费耶阿本德]]，辩称在科学和非科学之间做明确的划分是不可能、也是理想的。<ref>Feyerabend, P.（1975）''Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge'' ISBN 978-0-86091-646-8 [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm Table of contents and final chapter] .</ref><ref name="Gauch2003">{{cite book|first=H.G.|last=Gauch|year=2003|title=Scientific Method in Practice|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521017084|lccn=2002022271|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=iVkugqNG9dAC&pg=PA88|page=88|quote=A particularly radical reinterpretation of science comes from Paul Feyerabend, "the worst enemy of science"... Like Lakatos, Feyerabend was also a student under Popper. In an interview with Feyerabend in ''Science'', [he says] "Equal weight... should be given to competing avenues of knowledge such as astrology, acupunture, and witchcraft..."|access-date=2014-01-05|||}}</ref>在这个问题上，划分界限之所以困难是由于科学理论和方法论在新数据影响下不断进化的缘故。<ref>Thagard PR (1978) "Why astrology is a pseudoscience"（1978）In PSA 1978, Volume 1, ed. Asquith PD and Hacking I（East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978）223 ff. Thagard writes, at 227, 228: "We can now propose the following principle of demarcation: A theory or discipline which purports to be scientific is pseudoscientific if and only if: it has been less progressive than alternative theories over a long period of time, and faces many unsolved problems; but the community of practitioners makes little attempt to develop the theory towards solutions of the problems, shows no concern for attempts to evaluate the theory in relation to others, and is selective in considering confirmations and non confirmations."</ref>除此之外，适用于一种领域标准可能不适用于另一领域。


拉里·劳登（Larry Laudan）认为伪科学没有科学含义，不过是抒发感情而已：“如果我们起来数数理由，我们应该将‘伪科学’和‘不科学’等词汇踢出去；除了做感情工作以外，它们不过是些空话。”<ref>Laudan L (1996) "The demise of the demarcation problem" in Ruse, Michael, ''But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy '' pp. 337–350.</ref>同样，《怀疑者》的理查德·麦克纳利（McNally）称：“词汇‘伪科学’已经成了煽动性的流行词汇，是在媒体上攻击对手用的”，“每当补品商人们为自己的发明做广告时，我们没必要花时间来确认他们的发明是否在伪科学上达标。其实，我们应该干脆点：你怎么知道你的发明能转得起来？你的证据何在？”<ref>McNally RJ (2003) [http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology?] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice'', vol. 2, no. 2（Fall/Winter 2003）</ref>
拉里·劳登（Larry Laudan）认为伪科学没有科学含义，不过是抒发感情而已：“如果我们起来数数理由，我们应该将‘伪科学’和‘不科学’等词汇踢出去；除了做感情工作以外，它们不过是些空话。”<ref>Laudan L (1996) "The demise of the demarcation problem" in Ruse, Michael, ''But Is It Science?: The Philosophical Question in the Creation/Evolution Controversy '' pp. 337–350.</ref>同样，《怀疑者》的理查德·麦克纳利（McNally）称：“词汇‘伪科学’已经成了煽动性的流行词汇，是在媒体上攻击对手用的”，“每当补品商人们为自己的发明做广告时，我们没必要花时间来确认他们的发明是否在伪科学上达标。其实，我们应该干脆点：你怎么知道你的发明能转得起来？你的证据何在？”<ref>McNally RJ (2003) [http://www.srmhp.org/0202/pseudoscience.html Is the pseudoscience concept useful for clinical psychology?] ''The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice'', vol. 2, no. 2（Fall/Winter 2003）</ref>


== 历史 ==
== 历史 ==
伪科学历史是对各个时代伪科学理论的研究。伪科学是一套自称科学的思想，但却无法达到相应的标准。<ref>{{cite book|quote=Pseudoscientific&nbsp;– pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific|chapter=Pseudoscientific|title=Oxford American Dictionary|publisher= [[Oxford English Dictionary]]|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html |title=The Skeptic's Dictionary |chapter=Pseudoscience |ref=harv |access-date=2014-01-05 |archive-date=2009-02-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090201091026/http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html |dead-url=no }}</ref>正当科学和伪科学有时难以区分。一个划分界限的方式是来自哲学家卡尔·波普尔可证伪性。在[[科学史]]和“伪科学史”上，两者是难以区分的，因为有的科学是从伪科学中剥离出来的。一个例子是[[化学]]、它来自[[炼金术]]這一種偽科學<ref>{{cite book|title=Science, Pseudo-science, and Society|author=Marsha Hanen , Margaret Osler|pages=ix|isbn=978-0889201002|url=https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=KaaE-JGIbnAC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Alchemy+pseudoscience&source=bl&ots=bhl-0T0Zge&sig=tHYcHRXtmoGL6aWw41p1TYRfIok&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieuNLA74_SAhUGw7wKHZBTA4Y4ChDoAQg1MAQ#v=onepage&q=Alchemy%20pseudoscience&f=false|access-date=2017-02-14|archive-date=2020-11-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201127110013/https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=KaaE-JGIbnAC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Alchemy+pseudoscience&source=bl&ots=bhl-0T0Zge&sig=tHYcHRXtmoGL6aWw41p1TYRfIok&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieuNLA74_SAhUGw7wKHZBTA4Y4ChDoAQg1MAQ#v=onepage&q=Alchemy%20pseudoscience&f=false|dead-url=no}}</ref>。
伪科学历史是对各个时代伪科学理论的研究。伪科学是一套自称科学的思想，但却无法达到相应的标准。<ref>{{cite book|quote=Pseudoscientific&nbsp;– pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific|chapter=Pseudoscientific|title=Oxford American Dictionary|publisher= [[Oxford English Dictionary]]|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |url=http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html |title=The Skeptic's Dictionary |chapter=Pseudoscience |ref=harv |access-date=2014-01-05 |||}}</ref>正当科学和伪科学有时难以区分。一个划分界限的方式是来自哲学家卡尔·波普尔可证伪性。在[[科学史]]和“伪科学史”上，两者是难以区分的，因为有的科学是从伪科学中剥离出来的。一个例子是[[化学]]、它来自[[炼金术]]這一種偽科學<ref>{{cite book|title=Science, Pseudo-science, and Society|author=Marsha Hanen , Margaret Osler|pages=ix|isbn=978-0889201002|url=https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=KaaE-JGIbnAC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=Alchemy+pseudoscience&source=bl&ots=bhl-0T0Zge&sig=tHYcHRXtmoGL6aWw41p1TYRfIok&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwieuNLA74_SAhUGw7wKHZBTA4Y4ChDoAQg1MAQ#v=onepage&q=Alchemy%20pseudoscience&f=false|access-date=2017-02-14|||}}</ref>。


伪科学的多样性将科学史复杂化。现代伪科学，如[[占星术]]（星座占卜)就出现在科学时代之前。其它则产生于意识形态，如[[李森科主义]]是以回应对意识形态的挑战。而创世科学和[[智能设计]]则是对[[进化|进化论]]科学的回应。
伪科学的多样性将科学史复杂化。现代伪科学，如[[占星术]]（星座占卜)就出现在科学时代之前。其它则产生于意识形态，如[[李森科主义]]是以回应对意识形态的挑战。而创世科学和[[智能设计]]则是对[[进化|进化论]]科学的回应。


虽然无法达到正当科学的标准，许多伪科学幸存了下来。这常常是由于信徒综合症的固执、拒绝接受科学对其信仰的批判，或是出于盛行的迷思概念。人气过旺也是一个因素，例如占星术（星座占卜）虽然被绝大多数科学家所弃绝，但依然極其盛行。<ref name="taylor">{{cite web|title=The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003|author=Humphrey Taylor|url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359|accessdate=2007-01-05|ref=harv|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070111214109/http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359|archive-date=2007-01-11|dead-url=yes}}</ref><ref name="nsa1">{{cite web|title=Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding|publisher=National Science Foundation|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3|accessdate=2007-01-05|ref=harv|archive-date=2011-12-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111230065215/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encarta|year=2008|title=Astrology|publisher=Microsoft|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552380/Astrology.html|quote=Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.|accessdate=2007-08-28|archiveurl=https://www.webcitation.org/5kwqvOMFZ?url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552380/Astrology.html|archivedate=2009-11-01|deadurl=yes|ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Bufe|first=Chaz|title=Astrology: Fraud or Superstition|url=http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html|publisher=See Sharp Press|ref=harv|accessdate=2014-01-05|archive-date=2019-02-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190214083154/http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html|dead-url=yes}}</ref>
虽然无法达到正当科学的标准，许多伪科学幸存了下来。这常常是由于信徒综合症的固执、拒绝接受科学对其信仰的批判，或是出于盛行的迷思概念。人气过旺也是一个因素，例如占星术（星座占卜）虽然被绝大多数科学家所弃绝，但依然極其盛行。<ref name="taylor">{{cite web|title=The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003|author=Humphrey Taylor|url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359|accessdate=2007-01-05|ref=harv|||}}</ref><ref name="nsa1">{{cite web|title=Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding|publisher=National Science Foundation|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3|accessdate=2007-01-05|ref=harv|||}}</ref><ref>{{cite encyclopedia|encyclopedia=Encarta|year=2008|title=Astrology|publisher=Microsoft|url=http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761552380/Astrology.html|quote=Scientists have long rejected the principles of astrology, but millions of people continue to believe in or practice it.|accessdate=2007-08-28||||ref=harv}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Bufe|first=Chaz|title=Astrology: Fraud or Superstition|url=http://www.seesharppress.com/astro.html|publisher=See Sharp Press|ref=harv|accessdate=2014-01-05|||}}</ref>


== 识别 ==
== 识别 ==
第60行： 第60行：


=== 概念 ===
=== 概念 ===
罗伯特·T·卡罗尔（Carroll）称：“伪科学家声称他们的理论是建立在实证基础之上的，甚至使用了一些科学方式，但他们对核对实验知之甚少。许多伪科学家期望结果与他们所预期的相符，但他们没有注意到这种符合性不能证明任何东西。结果符合理论是必要条件，但不是充分条件。”<ref name=Carroll>{{Cite web|url=http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html|title=pseudoscience|author=Robert T. Carroll|year=2011|work=From Abracadabra to Zombies|publisher=Robert T. Carroll|accessdate=2014-01-06|archive-date=2020-12-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201209083019/http://skepdic.com/pseudosc.html|dead-url=no}}</ref>2006年，[[国家科学基金会]]（NSF）发布了一份科学和工程的总结性论文，讨论了现代社会泛滥的伪科学问题。<!-- <ref name="nsf"/> -->这种伪科学反应了对科学运作的无知。<!-- <ref name="nsf"/> -->[[科学界]]或许会对此作出回应，以惊醒大众注意那些未经证实的主张。<ref name="nsf">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3|title=Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding|author=[[National Science Board]]|year=2006|work=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006|publisher=[[National Science Foundation]]|at=Belief in Pseudoscience (see Footnote 29)|accessdate=3 March 2010|archive-date=2011-12-30|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111230065215/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3|dead-url=no}}</ref>
罗伯特·T·卡罗尔（Carroll）称：“伪科学家声称他们的理论是建立在实证基础之上的，甚至使用了一些科学方式，但他们对核对实验知之甚少。许多伪科学家期望结果与他们所预期的相符，但他们没有注意到这种符合性不能证明任何东西。结果符合理论是必要条件，但不是充分条件。”<ref name=Carroll>{{Cite web|url=http://www.skepdic.com/pseudosc.html|title=pseudoscience|author=Robert T. Carroll|year=2011|work=From Abracadabra to Zombies|publisher=Robert T. Carroll|accessdate=2014-01-06|||}}</ref>2006年，[[国家科学基金会]]（NSF）发布了一份科学和工程的总结性论文，讨论了现代社会泛滥的伪科学问题。<!-- <ref name="nsf"/> -->这种伪科学反应了对科学运作的无知。<!-- <ref name="nsf"/> -->[[科学界]]或许会对此作出回应，以惊醒大众注意那些未经证实的主张。<ref name="nsf">{{Cite web|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm#c7s2l3|title=Chapter 7: Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding|author=[[National Science Board]]|year=2006|work=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006|publisher=[[National Science Foundation]]|at=Belief in Pseudoscience (see Footnote 29)|accessdate=3 March 2010|||}}</ref>


如下是关于可能是伪科学的一些提示：
如下是关于可能是伪科学的一些提示：
第83行： 第83行：


=== 缺乏开放性，不便其他专家验证 ===
=== 缺乏开放性，不便其他专家验证 ===
* 在结果宣传上逃避[[同行评审]]：<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf|pmid=11832629|year=2001|last1=Gitanjali|first1=B|title=Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead|volume=47|issue=3|pages=210–4|journal=Journal of postgraduate medicine|author=|access-date=2014-01-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040717203919/http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf|archive-date=2004-07-17|dead-url=yes}}; Lilienfeld (2004) ''op cit'' For an opposing perspective, e.g. [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html Chapter 5 of Suppression Stories by Brian Martin（Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent, 1997）, pp. 69-83.]</ref>就思想的支持者而言，有的否认现行的[[科学理论]]与他们的观点存在矛盾，回避[[同行评审]]；有时则称同行评审歧视现有的范例；有时则称现有的科学方式或标准无法对结果做出检验。这些支持者都放弃了同行给出的校对机会，逃避检查。<ref>Ruscio (2001) ''op cit.</ref>
* 在结果宣传上逃避[[同行评审]]：<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/PDF/peerReview.pdf|pmid=11832629|year=2001|last1=Gitanjali|first1=B|title=Peer review -- process, perspectives and the path ahead|volume=47|issue=3|pages=210–4|journal=Journal of postgraduate medicine|author=|access-date=2014-01-07|||}}; Lilienfeld (2004) ''op cit'' For an opposing perspective, e.g. [http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/ss/ss5.html Chapter 5 of Suppression Stories by Brian Martin（Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent, 1997）, pp. 69-83.]</ref>就思想的支持者而言，有的否认现行的[[科学理论]]与他们的观点存在矛盾，回避[[同行评审]]；有时则称同行评审歧视现有的范例；有时则称现有的科学方式或标准无法对结果做出检验。这些支持者都放弃了同行给出的校对机会，逃避检查。<ref>Ruscio (2001) ''op cit.</ref>
* 有的机构、院校或刊物要求作者分享数据，以便同行可以独立检查。无法提供数据的都被判定为缺乏[[公开性]]。<ref name="Gauch_2003">Gauch (2003) ''op cit'' 124 ff"</ref>
* 有的机构、院校或刊物要求作者分享数据，以便同行可以独立检查。无法提供数据的都被判定为缺乏[[公开性]]。<ref name="Gauch_2003">Gauch (2003) ''op cit'' 124 ff"</ref>
* 当对数据、方法论进行独立检查时，要求保护[[隐私]]或[[知识产权]]。<ref name="Gauch_2003"/>
* 当对数据、方法论进行独立检查时，要求保护[[隐私]]或[[知识产权]]。<ref name="Gauch_2003"/>
第116行： 第116行：
[[卡尔·萨根]]在著作《[[魔鬼出没的世界]]》一书中称与世界一样，伪科学在美国泛滥成灾，并分析了它的原因、危险性、诊断和对策。<ref name=Carl-Sagan>{{cite book|year=1997|author=Sagan, Carl|authorlink=Carl Sagan|author2=Ann Druyan|chapter=The Most Precious Thing|title=The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|publisher=[[Ballantine Books]]|isbn=0-345-40946-9}}</ref>在西班牙，另一名科学作家刘易斯·阿方佐·加梅斯（Luis Alfonso Gámez）揭批一名流行的伪科学家的主张后被告上了法庭。<!-- <ref name=Matute/> -->欧洲有很多人认为顺势疗法（34%）和星座（13%）是可靠的科学。<ref name=Matute/>在过去的几十年中，寻求[[替代医学]]的患者越来越多。<!-- <ref name=Matute/> -->研究表明，有严重[[疾病]]的患者，如癌症、慢性病、艾滋病都是替代医学的常客。<ref name=Matute/>
[[卡尔·萨根]]在著作《[[魔鬼出没的世界]]》一书中称与世界一样，伪科学在美国泛滥成灾，并分析了它的原因、危险性、诊断和对策。<ref name=Carl-Sagan>{{cite book|year=1997|author=Sagan, Carl|authorlink=Carl Sagan|author2=Ann Druyan|chapter=The Most Precious Thing|title=The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark|publisher=[[Ballantine Books]]|isbn=0-345-40946-9}}</ref>在西班牙，另一名科学作家刘易斯·阿方佐·加梅斯（Luis Alfonso Gámez）揭批一名流行的伪科学家的主张后被告上了法庭。<!-- <ref name=Matute/> -->欧洲有很多人认为顺势疗法（34%）和星座（13%）是可靠的科学。<ref name=Matute/>在过去的几十年中，寻求[[替代医学]]的患者越来越多。<!-- <ref name=Matute/> -->研究表明，有严重[[疾病]]的患者，如癌症、慢性病、艾滋病都是替代医学的常客。<ref name=Matute/>


[[国家科学基金会]]称在美国，伪科学在二十世纪90年代泛滥、在2001年达到顶峰，随后有所下降但依然常见。<!-- <ref name=National-Science-Foundation/> -->根据报告，在社会上缺乏对伪科学问题的关注，而伪科学实践随后跟进。<ref name=National-Science-Foundation>National Science Board. 2006. ''[http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm Science and Engineering Indicators 2006] '' Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation（volume 1, NSB-06-01; NSB 06-01A）</ref>研究显示约有三分之一的美国成年人认为占星术是科学的。<ref>{{cite journal|last=National Science Board|title=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006|volume=2|format=PDF|page=A7–14|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/volume2.pdf|accessdate=2009-05-03|journal=|author=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090512203059/http://nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/volume2.pdf|archive-date=2009-05-12|dead-url=yes}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=FOX News|title=Poll: More Believe In God Than Heaven|date=June 18, 2004|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html|accessdate=Apr 26, 2009|publisher=[[Fox News Channel]]|journal=|author=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090305093146/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html|archive-date=2009-03-05|dead-url=yes}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Taylor|first=Humphrey|title=Harris Poll: The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003|date=February 26, 2003|url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?pid=359|accessdate=Apr 26, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070111214109/http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=359|archive-date=2007-01-11|dead-url=yes}}</ref>
[[国家科学基金会]]称在美国，伪科学在二十世纪90年代泛滥、在2001年达到顶峰，随后有所下降但依然常见。<!-- <ref name=National-Science-Foundation/> -->根据报告，在社会上缺乏对伪科学问题的关注，而伪科学实践随后跟进。<ref name=National-Science-Foundation>National Science Board. 2006. ''[http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm Science and Engineering Indicators 2006] '' Two volumes. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation（volume 1, NSB-06-01; NSB 06-01A）</ref>研究显示约有三分之一的美国成年人认为占星术是科学的。<ref>{{cite journal|last=National Science Board|title=Science and Engineering Indicators 2006|volume=2|format=PDF|page=A7–14|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/pdf/volume2.pdf|accessdate=2009-05-03|journal=|author=|||}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=FOX News|title=Poll: More Believe In God Than Heaven|date=June 18, 2004|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html|accessdate=Apr 26, 2009|publisher=[[Fox News Channel]]|journal=|author=|||}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Taylor|first=Humphrey|title=Harris Poll: The Religious and Other Beliefs of Americans 2003|date=February 26, 2003|url=http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?pid=359|accessdate=Apr 26, 2009|||}}</ref>


在《大学科学教育》<ref>the Journal of College Science Teaching</ref>上，阿特·霍布森（Art Hobson）写道：“伪科学甚至在公立学校的科学教师和新闻编辑中广为流传，这与缺乏科学素养大有关系。”<ref name=Art-Hobson>{{cite journal|author=Art Hobson|year=2011|title=Teaching Relevant Science for Scientific Literacy|journal=Journal of College Science Teaching|url=http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/00.12.JCST.pdf|access-date=2014-01-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110824105754/http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/00.12.JCST.pdf|archive-date=2011-08-24|dead-url=yes}}</ref>
在《大学科学教育》<ref>the Journal of College Science Teaching</ref>上，阿特·霍布森（Art Hobson）写道：“伪科学甚至在公立学校的科学教师和新闻编辑中广为流传，这与缺乏科学素养大有关系。”<ref name=Art-Hobson>{{cite journal|author=Art Hobson|year=2011|title=Teaching Relevant Science for Scientific Literacy|journal=Journal of College Science Teaching|url=http://physics.uark.edu/hobson/pubs/00.12.JCST.pdf|access-date=2014-01-07|||}}</ref>


== 解释 ==
== 解释 ==
第139行： 第139行：
== 划分界限 ==
== 划分界限 ==
{{see|划界问题}}
{{see|划界问题}}
在[[科学哲学]]和科学史中，[[拉卡托什·伊姆雷]]强调了社会对划分界限问题的影响，以及对区分科学和伪科学常用方法所存在的问题。他对科学方法论独特的历史分析是根据研究项目得出的：“科学家认为成功的理论预测是意料之外的新奇 ——例如[[哈雷彗星|哈雷彗星的归来]]或引力扭曲光线 ——正如区分好的科学理论和伪科学、或失败的科学理论一样，所有的科学理论都永远面对这‘如海量一般的反例’。”<ref name=Imre-Lakatos/>拉卡托什提出了一个“新奇的[[可谬论]]分析方式，以牛顿的天体运行论为案例，这是[他]的方法论中最喜爱的历史典故”，并辩称，他回答了[[卡尔·波普尔]]和托马斯·库恩理论上的不足。<ref name=Imre-Lakatos/>“不管怎样，拉卡托什的确承认到库恩对波普尔历史批判的作用 ——所有重要的理论都被‘海量一般的反例’所环绕着，从可证伪性角度来讲必须立即将理论开除掉才对...拉卡托什试图调和波普尔[[可证伪性]]中的[[理性主义]]，因为似乎它自己被历史给否定掉了。”<ref name="Bird2008">{{cite book|first=Alexander|last=Bird|chapter=The Historical Turn in the Philosophy of Science|title=Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science|editor1-first=Stathis|editor1-last=Psillos|editor2-first=Martin|editor2-last=Curd|location=Abingdon|publisher=Routledge|year=2008|pages=9, 14 (pdf)|url=http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/papers/The-Historical-Turn.pdf|access-date=2014-01-08|archive-date=2013-06-01|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130601030150/http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/papers/The-Historical-Turn.pdf|dead-url=no}}</ref>
在[[科学哲学]]和科学史中，[[拉卡托什·伊姆雷]]强调了社会对划分界限问题的影响，以及对区分科学和伪科学常用方法所存在的问题。他对科学方法论独特的历史分析是根据研究项目得出的：“科学家认为成功的理论预测是意料之外的新奇 ——例如[[哈雷彗星|哈雷彗星的归来]]或引力扭曲光线 ——正如区分好的科学理论和伪科学、或失败的科学理论一样，所有的科学理论都永远面对这‘如海量一般的反例’。”<ref name=Imre-Lakatos/>拉卡托什提出了一个“新奇的[[可谬论]]分析方式，以牛顿的天体运行论为案例，这是[他]的方法论中最喜爱的历史典故”，并辩称，他回答了[[卡尔·波普尔]]和托马斯·库恩理论上的不足。<ref name=Imre-Lakatos/>“不管怎样，拉卡托什的确承认到库恩对波普尔历史批判的作用 ——所有重要的理论都被‘海量一般的反例’所环绕着，从可证伪性角度来讲必须立即将理论开除掉才对...拉卡托什试图调和波普尔[[可证伪性]]中的[[理性主义]]，因为似乎它自己被历史给否定掉了。”<ref name="Bird2008">{{cite book|first=Alexander|last=Bird|chapter=The Historical Turn in the Philosophy of Science|title=Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Science|editor1-first=Stathis|editor1-last=Psillos|editor2-first=Martin|editor2-last=Curd|location=Abingdon|publisher=Routledge|year=2008|pages=9, 14 (pdf)|url=http://eis.bris.ac.uk/~plajb/research/papers/The-Historical-Turn.pdf|access-date=2014-01-08|||}}</ref>


{{quote|许多哲学家都尝试解决划分界限问题：一个论断如果被许多人认可，就算为知识。但思想史却告诉我们很多人完全折服在谬论之下。如果信仰的力量是知识的里程碑，我们就得把有关鬼怪、天使、恶魔、以及天堂和地狱都算为知识了。从另一方面考虑，科学家对自己最优秀的理论都心存疑惑。牛顿理论是迄今为止最强大的科学理论了，但牛顿自己从不将自己的信仰放在两个物体彼此相互吸引上。因此，信仰对于它们是否成为知识毫无关系。诚然，科学行为的里程碑在一定程度上是怀疑主义，甚至包括对自己最真爱的理论。对某一理论盲目的崇拜不是知识上的道义：它是知识上的罪恶。<br>由此，尽管某一个论断十分‘可能’，所有人都相信它，但它也可能是伪科学的；即便论断难以置信、无人搭理，但它也可能极具科学价值。某一个理论可能极具科学价值，但无人理解，更别说相信之类的了。<ref name=Imre-Lakatos/>|拉卡托什·伊姆雷|《科学和伪科学》}}
{{quote|许多哲学家都尝试解决划分界限问题：一个论断如果被许多人认可，就算为知识。但思想史却告诉我们很多人完全折服在谬论之下。如果信仰的力量是知识的里程碑，我们就得把有关鬼怪、天使、恶魔、以及天堂和地狱都算为知识了。从另一方面考虑，科学家对自己最优秀的理论都心存疑惑。牛顿理论是迄今为止最强大的科学理论了，但牛顿自己从不将自己的信仰放在两个物体彼此相互吸引上。因此，信仰对于它们是否成为知识毫无关系。诚然，科学行为的里程碑在一定程度上是怀疑主义，甚至包括对自己最真爱的理论。对某一理论盲目的崇拜不是知识上的道义：它是知识上的罪恶。<br>由此，尽管某一个论断十分‘可能’，所有人都相信它，但它也可能是伪科学的；即便论断难以置信、无人搭理，但它也可能极具科学价值。某一个理论可能极具科学价值，但无人理解，更别说相信之类的了。<ref name=Imre-Lakatos/>|拉卡托什·伊姆雷|《科学和伪科学》}}
第154行： 第154行：


=== 政治 ===
=== 政治 ===
伪科学可能会被伪善的政客所利用，曲解或编造科学事实来支持政治立场。<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->[[威尔士亲王]]{{who}}因使用伪科学来说服世界接受预警原则，回避[[全球变暖的效应]]而被指责为气候变化怀疑者。<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->人们在气候怀疑态度上给予许多注意力，并使用伪科学来拉选票。{{clarify}}<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->但他所坚持的“环境崩溃”的证据已经很明确了，<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->不单单是不断上升的气温，而且在许多物种，如[[蜜蜂属|蜜蜂]]上都有显现。<ref name=Gray>{{Cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html|title=The Prince of Wales accuses sceptics of peddling 'pseudo science'|first=Louise|last=Gray|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=15 July 2010|publisher=[[Telegraph Media Group|TMG]]|location=[[London, UK|London]]|issn=0307-1235|oclc=49632006|accessdate=March 13, 2011|archive-date=2014-08-15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140815013011/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html|dead-url=no}}</ref>科学家们可能会利用科学发现来获得关注，政客、记者或国家的知识分子也可扭曲科学发现以获得短期的政治好处，例如社会权贵可以通过花言巧语来将原因和辅因子合并（例如，艾滋病的原因），此时的科学被用于促进愚昧而不是破除愚昧。<!-- <ref name=Makgoba/> -->这些都降低了科学在社会上的权威、价值、正直性和独立性。<ref name=Makgoba>{{cite journal|author=Makgoba MW|title=Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience|journal=[[Vaccine (journal)]]|volume=20|issue=15|pages=1899–904|pmid=11983241|doi=10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00063-4|date=May 2002}}</ref>在美国，很多人缺乏[[科学素养]]，无法很好地理解科学原理或[[方法论]]。<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm|title=Public Knowledge About S&T|accessdate=August 28, 2013|quote=Surveys conducted in the United States and Europe reveal that many citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience (an indicator of scientific illiteracy) seems to be widespread among Americans and Europeans.|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/5902/20150818162958/http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm|archive-date=2015-08-18|dead-url=yes}}</ref><ref name="calacademy">{{cite web|url=http://www.calacademy.org/newsroom/releases/2009/scientific_literacy.php"|title=AMERICAN ADULTS FLUNK BASIC SCIENCE|accessdate=August 28, 2013|quote=A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive® reveals that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.}}{{Dead link|date=2018年8月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name="sciencenews">{{cite web|url=http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56517/description/Science_literacy_US_college_courses_really_count|title=Science literacy: U.S. college courses really count|accessdate=August 28, 2013|archive-date=2013-07-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130725145620/http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56517/description/Science_literacy_US_college_courses_really_count|dead-url=no}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2007/msu-prof-lack-of-science-knowledge-hurting-democratic-process/|title=MSU prof: Lack of science knowledge hurting democratic process|accessdate=August 28, 2013|quote=In a survey released earlier this year, Miller and colleagues found that about 28 percent of American adults qualified as scientifically literate, which is an increase of about 10 percent from the late 1980s and early 1990s.|archive-date=2013-09-11|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911201844/http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2007/msu-prof-lack-of-science-knowledge-hurting-democratic-process/|dead-url=no}}</ref>
伪科学可能会被伪善的政客所利用，曲解或编造科学事实来支持政治立场。<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->[[威尔士亲王]]{{who}}因使用伪科学来说服世界接受预警原则，回避[[全球变暖的效应]]而被指责为气候变化怀疑者。<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->人们在气候怀疑态度上给予许多注意力，并使用伪科学来拉选票。{{clarify}}<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->但他所坚持的“环境崩溃”的证据已经很明确了，<!-- <ref name=Gray/> -->不单单是不断上升的气温，而且在许多物种，如[[蜜蜂属|蜜蜂]]上都有显现。<ref name=Gray>{{Cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7890783/The-Prince-of-Wales-accuses-sceptics-of-peddling-pseudo-science.html|title=The Prince of Wales accuses sceptics of peddling 'pseudo science'|first=Louise|last=Gray|work=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|date=15 July 2010|publisher=[[Telegraph Media Group|TMG]]|location=[[London, UK|London]]|issn=0307-1235|oclc=49632006|accessdate=March 13, 2011|||}}</ref>科学家们可能会利用科学发现来获得关注，政客、记者或国家的知识分子也可扭曲科学发现以获得短期的政治好处，例如社会权贵可以通过花言巧语来将原因和辅因子合并（例如，艾滋病的原因），此时的科学被用于促进愚昧而不是破除愚昧。<!-- <ref name=Makgoba/> -->这些都降低了科学在社会上的权威、价值、正直性和独立性。<ref name=Makgoba>{{cite journal|author=Makgoba MW|title=Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience|journal=[[Vaccine (journal)]]|volume=20|issue=15|pages=1899–904|pmid=11983241|doi=10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00063-4|date=May 2002}}</ref>在美国，很多人缺乏[[科学素养]]，无法很好地理解科学原理或[[方法论]]。<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm|title=Public Knowledge About S&T|accessdate=August 28, 2013|quote=Surveys conducted in the United States and Europe reveal that many citizens do not have a firm grasp of basic scientific facts and concepts, nor do they have an understanding of the scientific process. In addition, belief in pseudoscience (an indicator of scientific illiteracy) seems to be widespread among Americans and Europeans.|||}}</ref><ref name="calacademy">{{cite web|url=http://www.calacademy.org/newsroom/releases/2009/scientific_literacy.php"|title=AMERICAN ADULTS FLUNK BASIC SCIENCE|accessdate=August 28, 2013|quote=A new national survey commissioned by the California Academy of Sciences and conducted by Harris Interactive® reveals that the U.S. public is unable to pass even a basic scientific literacy test.}}{{Dead link|date=2018年8月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref name="sciencenews">{{cite web|url=http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56517/description/Science_literacy_US_college_courses_really_count|title=Science literacy: U.S. college courses really count|accessdate=August 28, 2013|||}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2007/msu-prof-lack-of-science-knowledge-hurting-democratic-process/|title=MSU prof: Lack of science knowledge hurting democratic process|accessdate=August 28, 2013|quote=In a survey released earlier this year, Miller and colleagues found that about 28 percent of American adults qualified as scientifically literate, which is an increase of about 10 percent from the late 1980s and early 1990s.|||}}</ref>


1980年代以前，在一些国家，例如[[苏联]]在政治运动中，[[相对论]]、[[控制论]]、[[遗传学|孟德尔-摩尔根遗传学]]、[[大爆炸理论]]等科学被称为“[[资产阶级]]伪科学”、“[[唯心主义]]伪科学”<ref>范岱年：唯科学主义在中国——历史的回顾与批判，[http://www12.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/no01/1/258518.shtml 北京大学科学传播中心]</ref>，来自苏联的真正伪科学理论（如[[李森科]]理论）却被作为“先进科学”大肆宣传。在这些国家，一些从事科学研究的政治投机分子常常以“伪科学”作为政治武器来打击异己。例如1940年代末至1950年代，苏联农业科学院院长李森科宣布[[孟德尔]]的[[遗传]]理论为伪科学<ref>1948年7月31日至8月7日，李森科在全苏列宁农业科学院举行《关于生物科学状况》的报告中，宣布“我们不想跟摩尔根主义者讨论。我们将继续揭露他们这些本质上有害的、思想上异己的伪科学倾向的代表人物。”</ref>。1951年，苏联科学院发动了对控制论以及[[共振论]]的批判，并将其宣布为“伪科学”<ref>[[中国科学院]]院刊《科学通报》1952年卷：“……1951年间举行的关于[[有机化学]]中化学构造理论的全苏联讨论会是苏联化学中的最重要的事件。苏联化学家、物理学家和哲学家尖锐地批评了资产阶级学者底唯心的“共振论”，揭露了它的伪科学本质，并且斥责了有些苏联化学家对这个错误理论所进行的宣传……”</ref>。1948年，苏联反导弹系统创始人、[[苏联科学院]]通讯院士{{link-ru|格雷戈里·瓦西里耶维奇·基苏尼科|Кисунько, Григорий Васильевич}}的著作因“……书的正文中到处都是外国姓氏：[[麦克斯韦]]、[[海因里希·鲁道夫·赫兹|赫兹]]、[[亥姆霍兹]]……”（苏联科学院学术委员会评语）而被取消评选[[斯大林奖金]]的资格。1951年，{{le|苏联高等教育部|Ministry of Higher Education (Soviet Union)|苏联高等教育部长}}{{link-ru|卡夫塔诺夫|Кафтанов, Сергей Васильевич}}向部长会议副主席[[伏罗希洛夫]]作的报告中曾经宣称“教科书中反映[[俄罗斯]]和苏联学者在发展物理学方面的作用非常不充分，书籍中充满外国科学家的名字……”。
1980年代以前，在一些国家，例如[[苏联]]在政治运动中，[[相对论]]、[[控制论]]、[[遗传学|孟德尔-摩尔根遗传学]]、[[大爆炸理论]]等科学被称为“[[资产阶级]]伪科学”、“[[唯心主义]]伪科学”<ref>范岱年：唯科学主义在中国——历史的回顾与批判，[http://www12.tianya.cn/publicforum/Content/no01/1/258518.shtml 北京大学科学传播中心]</ref>，来自苏联的真正伪科学理论（如[[李森科]]理论）却被作为“先进科学”大肆宣传。在这些国家，一些从事科学研究的政治投机分子常常以“伪科学”作为政治武器来打击异己。例如1940年代末至1950年代，苏联农业科学院院长李森科宣布[[孟德尔]]的[[遗传]]理论为伪科学<ref>1948年7月31日至8月7日，李森科在全苏列宁农业科学院举行《关于生物科学状况》的报告中，宣布“我们不想跟摩尔根主义者讨论。我们将继续揭露他们这些本质上有害的、思想上异己的伪科学倾向的代表人物。”</ref>。1951年，苏联科学院发动了对控制论以及[[共振论]]的批判，并将其宣布为“伪科学”<ref>[[中国科学院]]院刊《科学通报》1952年卷：“……1951年间举行的关于[[有机化学]]中化学构造理论的全苏联讨论会是苏联化学中的最重要的事件。苏联化学家、物理学家和哲学家尖锐地批评了资产阶级学者底唯心的“共振论”，揭露了它的伪科学本质，并且斥责了有些苏联化学家对这个错误理论所进行的宣传……”</ref>。1948年，苏联反导弹系统创始人、[[苏联科学院]]通讯院士{{link-ru|格雷戈里·瓦西里耶维奇·基苏尼科|Кисунько, Григорий Васильевич}}的著作因“……书的正文中到处都是外国姓氏：[[麦克斯韦]]、[[海因里希·鲁道夫·赫兹|赫兹]]、[[亥姆霍兹]]……”（苏联科学院学术委员会评语）而被取消评选[[斯大林奖金]]的资格。1951年，{{le|苏联高等教育部|Ministry of Higher Education (Soviet Union)|苏联高等教育部长}}{{link-ru|卡夫塔诺夫|Кафтанов, Сергей Васильевич}}向部长会议副主席[[伏罗希洛夫]]作的报告中曾经宣称“教科书中反映[[俄罗斯]]和苏联学者在发展物理学方面的作用非常不充分，书籍中充满外国科学家的名字……”。


=== 健康与教育 ===
=== 健康与教育 ===
分辨科学和伪科学对医疗、专家证词、环保政策、科学教育都有影响。<!-- <ref name="Stanford"/> -->头戴科学光环，但没有真实的科学实验，会对患者造成低效、昂贵、危险的结果，混淆医药供给者、保险人、政府决策者，为难公众。<!-- <ref name="Stanford"/> -->伪科学的主张会导致政府官员和教育者们在教材选用上作出错误的决定。<ref name="Stanford">{{cite web|last=Hansson|first=Sven Ove|title=Science and Pseudo-Science|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#PurDem|work=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Stanford University|accessdate=April 16, 2011|date=September 3, 2008|quote=From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas.|archive-date=2015-09-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905091332/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#PurDem|dead-url=no}}</ref>
分辨科学和伪科学对医疗、专家证词、环保政策、科学教育都有影响。<!-- <ref name="Stanford"/> -->头戴科学光环，但没有真实的科学实验，会对患者造成低效、昂贵、危险的结果，混淆医药供给者、保险人、政府决策者，为难公众。<!-- <ref name="Stanford"/> -->伪科学的主张会导致政府官员和教育者们在教材选用上作出错误的决定。<ref name="Stanford">{{cite web|last=Hansson|first=Sven Ove|title=Science and Pseudo-Science|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#PurDem|work=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Stanford University|accessdate=April 16, 2011|date=September 3, 2008|quote=From a practical point of view, the distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and public life. Since science is our most reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes. Due to the high status of science in present-day society, attempts to exaggerate the scientific status of various claims, teachings, and products are common enough to make the demarcation issue pressing in many areas.|||}}</ref>


出于多种原因，科学家可能不愿意参与到反伪科学的运动当中。<!-- <ref name=Efthimiou/> -->例如，伪科学的主张是非理性的，无法用理性来反驳，甚至与伪科学对话都是一种对它们的认可。<!-- <ref name=Efthimiou/> -->伪科学正持续对我们的社会产生越来越多的威胁。<ref name=Efthimiou/>从长远角度考虑，它们所产生的伤害是无法估量的。<!-- <ref name=Efthimiou/> -->当公众對科学的认知下降时，伪科学的威胁性增加了，通过修订常规的科学课程来区别于伪科学，可以提升科学认知，同时消除其导致的误解和其需求趋势。<ref name=Efthimiou>{{cite arXiv|eprint=physics/0608061|title=Is Pseudoscience the Solution to Science Literacy?|author=C.J. Efthimiou, R. Llewellyn|year=2006|class=physics.ed-ph}}</ref>
出于多种原因，科学家可能不愿意参与到反伪科学的运动当中。<!-- <ref name=Efthimiou/> -->例如，伪科学的主张是非理性的，无法用理性来反驳，甚至与伪科学对话都是一种对它们的认可。<!-- <ref name=Efthimiou/> -->伪科学正持续对我们的社会产生越来越多的威胁。<ref name=Efthimiou/>从长远角度考虑，它们所产生的伤害是无法估量的。<!-- <ref name=Efthimiou/> -->当公众對科学的认知下降时，伪科学的威胁性增加了，通过修订常规的科学课程来区别于伪科学，可以提升科学认知，同时消除其导致的误解和其需求趋势。<ref name=Efthimiou>{{cite arXiv|eprint=physics/0608061|title=Is Pseudoscience the Solution to Science Literacy?|author=C.J. Efthimiou, R. Llewellyn|year=2006|class=physics.ed-ph}}</ref>
第176行： 第176行：
{{refbegin|2}}
{{refbegin|2}}
* {{cite book|last=Andrews|first=James Pettit|last2=Henry|first2=Robert|authorlink=James Pettit Andrews|authorlink2=Robert Henry|title=History of Great Britain, from the death of Henry VIII to the accession of James VI of Scotland to the Crown of England|volume=II|page=87|year=1796|publisher=T. Cadell and W. Davies|location=London|url=http://books.google.com/?id=QIUUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=%22pseudo-science%22#v=onepage&q=%22pseudo-science%22&f=true|accessdate=2010-10-11|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Andrews|first=James Pettit|last2=Henry|first2=Robert|authorlink=James Pettit Andrews|authorlink2=Robert Henry|title=History of Great Britain, from the death of Henry VIII to the accession of James VI of Scotland to the Crown of England|volume=II|page=87|year=1796|publisher=T. Cadell and W. Davies|location=London|url=http://books.google.com/?id=QIUUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA87&dq=%22pseudo-science%22#v=onepage&q=%22pseudo-science%22&f=true|accessdate=2010-10-11|ref=harv}}
* {{cite web|last=Hansson|first=Sven Ove|year=2008|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#NonSciPosSci|title=Science and Pseudo-science|ref=harv|accessdate=2014-01-05|archive-date=2015-09-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905091332/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#NonSciPosSci|dead-url=no}}
* {{cite web|last=Hansson|first=Sven Ove|year=2008|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#NonSciPosSci|title=Science and Pseudo-science|ref=harv|accessdate=2014-01-05|||}}
* {{cite book|last=Shermer|first=M.|year=1997|title=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|url=https://archive.org/details/whypeoplebelieve0000sher|location=New York|publisher=W. H. Freeman and Company|isbn=0-7167-3090-1|ref=harv}}
* {{cite book|last=Shermer|first=M.|year=1997|title=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|url=https://archive.org/details/whypeoplebelieve0000sher|location=New York|publisher=W. H. Freeman and Company|isbn=0-7167-3090-1|ref=harv}}
{{refend}}
{{refend}}
第183行： 第183行：
{{refbegin|2}}
{{refbegin|2}}
* {{cite book|title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem|editor=Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry|location=Chicago|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2013|isbn=9780226051963}}
* {{cite book|title=Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem|editor=Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry|location=Chicago|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2013|isbn=9780226051963}}
* {{cite journal|last=Shermer|first=Michael|date=September 2011|title=What Is Pseudoscience?: Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic|journal=Scientific American|page=92|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-pseudoscience|access-date=2014-01-05|archive-date=2016-08-31|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160831014900/http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-pseudoscience|dead-url=no}}
* {{cite journal|last=Shermer|first=Michael|date=September 2011|title=What Is Pseudoscience?: Distinguishing between science and pseudoscience is problematic|journal=Scientific American|page=92|url=http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-pseudoscience|access-date=2014-01-05|||}}
* {{cite web|date=September 3, 2008|author=Hansson, S.O|title=Science and Pseudo-Science|work=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/|accessdate=2014-01-05|archive-date=2015-09-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150905091332/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/|dead-url=no}}
* {{cite web|date=September 3, 2008|author=Hansson, S.O|title=Science and Pseudo-Science|work=[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/|accessdate=2014-01-05|||}}
* {{cite book|author=Schadewald Robert J|year=2008|title=Worlds of Their Own – A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair|publisher=Xlibris|isbn=978-1-4363-0435-1}}
* {{cite book|author=Schadewald Robert J|year=2008|title=Worlds of Their Own – A Brief History of Misguided Ideas: Creationism, Flat-Earthism, Energy Scams, and the Velikovsky Affair|publisher=Xlibris|isbn=978-1-4363-0435-1}}
* {{cite book|author=Shermer M, Gould SJ|year=2002|title=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|publisher=Holt Paperbacks|location=New York|isbn=0-8050-7089-3}}
* {{cite book|author=Shermer M, Gould SJ|year=2002|title=Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time|publisher=Holt Paperbacks|location=New York|isbn=0-8050-7089-3}}
第190行： 第190行：
* {{cite book|author=Wilson F|year=2000|title=The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience|publisher=Canadian Scholars Press|isbn=1-55130-175-X }}
* {{cite book|author=Wilson F|year=2000|title=The Logic and Methodology of Science and Pseudoscience|publisher=Canadian Scholars Press|isbn=1-55130-175-X }}
* {{cite book|author=Bauer Henry H|year=2000|title=Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies|url=https://archive.org/details/scienceorpseudos00henr|publisher=University of Illinois Press|isbn=978-0-252-02601-0}}
* {{cite book|author=Bauer Henry H|year=2000|title=Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies|url=https://archive.org/details/scienceorpseudos00henr|publisher=University of Illinois Press|isbn=978-0-252-02601-0}}
* {{cite book|author=Charpak, Georges|authorlink=Georges Charpak|author2=Broch, Henri|author3=Translated from the French by Bart K. Holland|year=2004|title=Debunked: Esp, telekinesis, other pseudoscience|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]]|isbn=0-8018-7867-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=DpnWcMzeh8oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Debunked%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|postscript=  Originally published 2002 by Odile Jacob as ''Devenez sorciers, devenez savants''|access-date=2014-01-05|archive-date=2016-06-24|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160624004006/https://books.google.com/books?id=DpnWcMzeh8oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Debunked%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|dead-url=no}}
* {{cite book|author=Charpak, Georges|authorlink=Georges Charpak|author2=Broch, Henri|author3=Translated from the French by Bart K. Holland|year=2004|title=Debunked: Esp, telekinesis, other pseudoscience|publisher=[[Johns Hopkins University Press]]|isbn=0-8018-7867-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=DpnWcMzeh8oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22Debunked%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|postscript=  Originally published 2002 by Odile Jacob as ''Devenez sorciers, devenez savants''|access-date=2014-01-05|||}}
* {{cite book|last=Cioffi|first=Frank|title=Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience|url=https://archive.org/details/freudquestionof00ciof|year=1998|publisher=Open Court, division of Carus|location=Chicaco and La Salle, Illinois|isbn=0-8126-9385-X|pages=[https://archive.org/details/freudquestionof00ciof/page/n325 314]}}
* {{cite book|last=Cioffi|first=Frank|title=Freud and the Question of Pseudoscience|url=https://archive.org/details/freudquestionof00ciof|year=1998|publisher=Open Court, division of Carus|location=Chicaco and La Salle, Illinois|isbn=0-8126-9385-X|pages=[https://archive.org/details/freudquestionof00ciof/page/n325 314]}}
* {{cite journal|author=Hansson, Sven Ove|authorlink=Sven Ove Hansson|year=1996|title=Defining pseudoscience|journal=Philosophia naturalis|volume=33|pages=169–176|issn=}}
* {{cite journal|author=Hansson, Sven Ove|authorlink=Sven Ove Hansson|year=1996|title=Defining pseudoscience|journal=Philosophia naturalis|volume=33|pages=169–176|issn=}}
* {{cite journal|last=Pratkanis|first=Anthony R|authorlink=Anthony Pratkanis|year=1995|month=July/August|title=How to Sell a Pseudoscience|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|volume=19|issue=4|pages=19–25|url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm|author=|access-date=2014-01-05|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061211055201/http://www.positiveatheism.org//writ/pratkanis.htm|archive-date=2006-12-11|dead-url=yes}}
* {{cite journal|last=Pratkanis|first=Anthony R|authorlink=Anthony Pratkanis|year=1995|month=July/August|title=How to Sell a Pseudoscience|journal=Skeptical Inquirer|volume=19|issue=4|pages=19–25|url=http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/pratkanis.htm|author=|access-date=2014-01-05|||}}
* {{cite book|year=1994|author=Wolpert, Lewis|authorlink=Lewis Wolpert|title=The Unnatural Nature of Science|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|isbn=0-674-92980-2|url=http://books.google.com/?id=67Mr-fhfZmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+unnatural+nature+of+science%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|postscript=  Paperback ISBN 978-0-674-92981-4}} First published 1992 by Faber & Faber, London.
* {{cite book|year=1994|author=Wolpert, Lewis|authorlink=Lewis Wolpert|title=The Unnatural Nature of Science|publisher=[[Harvard University Press]]|isbn=0-674-92980-2|url=http://books.google.com/?id=67Mr-fhfZmQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22the+unnatural+nature+of+science%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|postscript=  Paperback ISBN 978-0-674-92981-4}} First published 1992 by Faber & Faber, London.
* {{cite journal|author=Martin M|year=1994|title=Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education|journal=Science & Education|volume=3|pages=1573–901|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8u0371370878485/|doi=10.1007/BF00488452|bibcode=1994Sc&Ed...3..357M|issue=4}}{{Dead link|date=2020年2月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* {{cite journal|author=Martin M|year=1994|title=Pseudoscience, the paranormal, and science education|journal=Science & Education|volume=3|pages=1573–901|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/g8u0371370878485/|doi=10.1007/BF00488452|bibcode=1994Sc&Ed...3..357M|issue=4}}{{Dead link|date=2020年2月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* {{cite journal|author=Derksen AA|year=1993|title=The seven sins of pseudo-science|journal=J Gen Phil Sci|volume=24|pages=17–42|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/x618564113015377/|doi=10.1007/BF00769513}}{{Dead link|date=2020年2月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* {{cite journal|author=Derksen AA|year=1993|title=The seven sins of pseudo-science|journal=J Gen Phil Sci|volume=24|pages=17–42|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/x618564113015377/|doi=10.1007/BF00769513}}{{Dead link|date=2020年2月 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}
* {{cite book|author=Gardner M|year=1990|title=Science – Good, Bad and Bogus|publisher=Prometheus Books|location=|isbn=0-87975-573-3 }}
* {{cite book|author=Gardner M|year=1990|title=Science – Good, Bad and Bogus|publisher=Prometheus Books|location=|isbn=0-87975-573-3 }}
:{{cite journal|date=October 29, 1981|author=Little, John|authorlink=John Little (academic)|title=Review and useful overview of Gardner's book|journal=[[New Scientist]]|page=320|volume=92|issue=1277|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Gfh9AnIDxS8C&pg=PA320&dq=%22Science+%E2%80%93+Good,+Bad+and+Bogus%22#v=onepage&q=%22Science%20%E2%80%93%20Good%2C%20Bad%20and%20Bogus%22&f=false|access-date=2014-01-05|archive-date=2016-06-17|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160617124154/https://books.google.com/books?id=Gfh9AnIDxS8C&pg=PA320&dq=%22Science+%E2%80%93+Good,+Bad+and+Bogus%22#v=onepage&q=%22Science%20%E2%80%93%20Good%2C%20Bad%20and%20Bogus%22&f=false|dead-url=no}}
:{{cite journal|date=October 29, 1981|author=Little, John|authorlink=John Little (academic)|title=Review and useful overview of Gardner's book|journal=[[New Scientist]]|page=320|volume=92|issue=1277|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Gfh9AnIDxS8C&pg=PA320&dq=%22Science+%E2%80%93+Good,+Bad+and+Bogus%22#v=onepage&q=%22Science%20%E2%80%93%20Good%2C%20Bad%20and%20Bogus%22&f=false|access-date=2014-01-05|||}}
* {{cite book|year=1957|author=Gardner, Martin|title=Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science|edition=2nd, revised & expanded|place=Mineola, New York|publisher=[[Dover Publications]]|isbn=0-486-20394-8|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22fads+and+fallacies%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|access-date=2014-01-05|archive-date=2017-02-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170225052638/https://books.google.com/books?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22fads+and+fallacies%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|dead-url=no}} Originally published 1952 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, under the title ''In the Name of Science''.
* {{cite book|year=1957|author=Gardner, Martin|title=Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science|edition=2nd, revised & expanded|place=Mineola, New York|publisher=[[Dover Publications]]|isbn=0-486-20394-8|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=TwP3SGAUsnkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22fads+and+fallacies%22#v=onepage&q&f=false|access-date=2014-01-05|||}} Originally published 1952 by G.P. Putnam's Sons, under the title ''In the Name of Science''.
{{refend}}
{{refend}}


取自“https://www.qiuwenbaike.cn/wiki/伪科学”