here, some thoughts [perhaps philosophizing!] on the appropriateness of terms the essentially naturopathic both scientific and a philosophy by way of a Perplexity task:
001. the task to Perplexity was:
“Is it appropriate to term a science-ejected idea falsely posed as science a ’philosophy’?”
Unpacking: So, naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected idea of vitalism, at its foundation. Naturopathy also states that this survives scientific scrutiny and is science-based. Finally, naturopathy states that all this is a philosophy.
I generally find Perplexity to get to the heart of a pointed matter in a very unbiased manner, and the answer provided for this question is quite unbiased.
002. the answer:
“It is not appropriate to call a science-ejected idea, falsely posed as science, a "philosophy"; such ideas are more accurately termed "pseudoscience" rather than philosophy. Philosophy is a distinct intellectual tradition that prioritizes critical reasoning and conceptual analysis, and while it sometimes engages with questions science cannot answer directly, it does not claim scientific authority or misuse scientific language to appear legitimate.[1][2][3][4][5][6]
Philosophy versus Pseudoscience
Philosophy involves rigorous reasoning, conceptual analysis, and sometimes reflection on scientific findings, but it does not present itself as science or adopt scientific trappings to claim legitimacy. Pseudoscience, by contrast, consists of ideas or doctrines that attempt to masquerade as science but fail to adhere to scientific methods or evidence. A science-ejected idea—one that has been rejected by the scientific community because it fails tests of evidence, falsifiability, or peer review—remains pseudoscientific if its proponents continue to present it as scientific.[2][4][5][7][6][1]
Defining Appropriate Terminology
Calling such ideas "philosophy" is not accurate because:
- Philosophy does not pretend to be science or claim empirical authority it cannot justify.[5][1]
- Pseudoscience is specifically defined by its pretense to scientific legitimacy without adhering to the methods or standards of science.[4][6][2]
- Other forms of non-scientific inquiry, such as philosophy or religion, do not masquerade as science; only pseudoscience does.[3][5]
|
Term |
Claims Scientific Status |
Uses Scientific Method |
Appropriateness for Ejected Ideas |
|
Philosophy |
No |
No |
Inappropriate |
|
Pseudoscience |
Yes |
No |
Appropriate |
|
Religion |
No |
No |
Inappropriate |
Ideas rejected by science that still falsely claim scientific credibility should be labeled 'pseudoscience' rather than ‘philosophy’."[6][2][4]
003. the sources:
I thought it would be interesting to delve into the sources a bit.
003.a. they were:
“1. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02698595.2022.2057777
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
5. https://iep.utm.edu/pseudoscience-demarcation/
6. https://stefaanblancke.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/blancke-and-boudry-2022-pseudoscience-as-the-negative-outcome-of-scientific-dialogue.pdf
7. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/pseudo-science/
8. https://www.thesavvystreet.com/transcript-do-scientists-need-philosophy/
9. https://philosophynow.org/issues/74/Evaluating_Scientific_Theories
10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superseded_scientific_theories
11. https://www.reddit.com/r/scienceisdope/comments/16tsnds/what_exactly_is_philosophy_is_it_science_or/
12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ
13. https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/3hxghf/when_scientists_argue_that_philosophy_is_obsolete/
14. https://aeon.co/essays/the-string-theory-wars-show-us-how-science-needs-philosophy
15. https://fs.blog/karl-popper-on-science-pseudoscience/
16. https://aeon.co/essays/imre-lakatos-and-the-philosophy-of-bad-science
17. https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/pseudoscience/pseudoscience.html
18. https://ndpr.nd.edu/reviews/philosophy-of-pseudoscience-reconsidering-the-demarcation-problem/
19. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/poabv5/how_to_deal_with_scientific_findings_in_philosophy/
20. https://academic.oup.com/ndt/article/31/12/1977/2661714
21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
22. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02698595.2022.2057777
23. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
24. https://stefaanblancke.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/blancke-and-boudry-2022-pseudoscience-as-the-negative-outcome-of-scientific-dialogue.pdf
25. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism
26. https://iep.utm.edu/pseudoscience-demarcation/
27. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/pseudo-science/”
003.b. Perplexity was asked:
“Can you tabulate the sources that were used above in this manner: column 1 will be Source Title, column 2 will be Degree of Reliability, and column 3 will be Contribution to the Argument?”
003.c. this was the answer:
“
|
Source Title |
Degree of Reliability |
Contribution to the Argument |
|
Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) |
High (academic, peer-reviewed) |
Defines pseudoscience, distinguishes it from philosophy[21]. |
|
Pseudoscience as a Negative Outcome of Scientific Dialogue (Tandfonline) |
High (peer-reviewed, scholarly) |
Discusses pseudoscience as a result of misusing scientific claims[22]. |
|
Pseudoscience - Wikipedia |
Moderate (community-edited, referenced) |
Provides a general overview and common definitions of pseudoscience[23]. |
|
[PDF] Pseudoscience as the Negative Outcome... (Blancke and Boudry) |
High (academic publication) |
Explores why science-ejected ideas are better classified as pseudoscience[24]. |
|
The Folly of Scientism - The New Atlantis |
Moderate (popular philosophy journal) |
Discusses the proper scope of philosophy and its relation to science[25]. |
|
Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem (IEP) |
High (encyclopedia, expert-authored) |
Lays out criteria distinguishing philosophy, science, pseudoscience[26]. |
|
Science and Pseudo-Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, alternate version) |
High (academic, peer-reviewed) |
Offers further explanation on pseudo-science and demarcation[27]. |
“
003. thoughts:
003.a.
I’ve said in the past that naturopathy abuses the term philosophy, e.g. love (phil-) of wisdom (-sophia), because it is not a virtue – it is not good, it is not wise -- to love and present as wisdom what is wrong or incorrect. I believe that this facet of naturopathy is very close to source, the very upstream source, if not the source, of what I’ve often termed an ‘inversion of values.’
003.b. and so one more question was asked:
“Is such misterming an inversion of values?”
003.c. the answer:
“Yes, mislabeling a science-ejected idea (pseudoscience) as ‘philosophy’ can be seen as an inversion of values, because it distorts the ethical and intellectual standards each discipline represents. Philosophical inquiry values conceptual clarity, critical analysis, and open-ended questioning, whereas pseudoscience tries to create a false appearance of scientific legitimacy and often employs misleading language or ideology to undermine genuine scientific or philosophical values.
By elevating a misrepresented, discredited idea to the status of philosophy, it grants it unwarranted prestige, potentially conflating critical rational debate with dogma, and undermines both the standards of philosophy and science in the process—a clear reversal or corruption of the values these fields are supposed to represent.
This inversion can be harmful, as it creates confusion about authority, undermines trust in valid epistemic processes, and enables the spread of ideas that lack valid justification while borrowing the credibility of genuine philosophy.”
004. myself:
I must disclose, incidentally, that as a Phi Beta Kappan, I support the idea that ‘philosophy is the guide of life’ / ‘love of learning is the guide of life’ [Φιλοσοφία Βίου Κυβερνήτης Philosophia Biou Kybernētēs or something like that!].
Yet, I think a more pedestrian and practical expression of that virtue is the most dangerous question of all [because it represents the freedom known as enquiry, broadly; and specifically, to engage in an inquiry]:
“What Do You Mean?”
No comments:
Post a Comment