Academic Bibliography

 Search 200 years of publications by Ghent University researchers.
Advanced search
1 file | 67.44 KB
Add to list
  1. Search results
  2. The hypothesis that saves the day: ad...

The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience

Maarten Boudry (UGent)
(2013) LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE. 223. p.245-258
Author
Organization
Abstract
What is wrong with ad hoc hypotheses? Ever since Popper's falsificationist account of adhocness, there has been a lively philosophical discussion about what constitutes adhocness in scientific explanation, and what, if anything, distinguishes legitimate auxiliary hypotheses from illicit ad hoc ones. This paper draws upon distinct examples from pseudoscience to provide us with a clearer view as to what is troubling about ad hoc hypotheses. In contrast with other philosophical proposals, our approach retains the colloquial, derogative meaning of adhocness, and calls attention to the way in which the context of a theoretical move bears on the charge of adhocness. We also discuss the role of motivations implicit in the concept of adhocness, and the way ad hoc moves draw on theory-internal rationalizations.
Keywords
DEMARCATION, PSI, FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS

Downloads

  • Download
    (...).pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • UGent only
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 67.44 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Boudry, Maarten. “The Hypothesis That Saves the Day: Ad Hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience.” LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE, vol. 223, 2013, pp. 245–58.
APA
Boudry, M. (2013). The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience. LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE, 223, 245–258.
Chicago author-date
Boudry, Maarten. 2013. “The Hypothesis That Saves the Day: Ad Hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience.” LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE 223: 245–58.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Boudry, Maarten. 2013. “The Hypothesis That Saves the Day: Ad Hoc Reasoning in Pseudoscience.” LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE 223: 245–258.
Vancouver
1.
Boudry M. The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience. LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE. 2013;223:245–58.
IEEE
[1]
M. Boudry, “The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience,” LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE, vol. 223, pp. 245–258, 2013.
@article{4117975,
  abstract     = {{What is wrong with ad hoc hypotheses? Ever since Popper's falsificationist account of adhocness, there has been a lively philosophical discussion about what constitutes adhocness in scientific explanation, and what, if anything, distinguishes legitimate auxiliary hypotheses from illicit ad hoc ones. This paper draws upon distinct examples from pseudoscience to provide us with a clearer view as to what is troubling about ad hoc hypotheses. In contrast with other philosophical proposals, our approach retains the colloquial, derogative meaning of adhocness, and calls attention to the way in which the context of a theoretical move bears on the charge of adhocness. We also discuss the role of motivations implicit in the concept of adhocness, and the way ad hoc moves draw on theory-internal rationalizations.}},
  author       = {{Boudry, Maarten}},
  issn         = {{0024-5836}},
  journal      = {{LOGIQUE ET ANALYSE}},
  keywords     = {{DEMARCATION,PSI,FREUDIAN PSYCHOANALYSIS}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  pages        = {{245--258}},
  title        = {{The hypothesis that saves the day: ad hoc reasoning in pseudoscience}},
  volume       = {{223}},
  year         = {{2013}},
}
Web of Science
Times cited: