Základy filozofie filozofie vědy Tomáš Ondráček ondracek.t@mail.muni.cz Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University 2020 HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 2 / 103 HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA Co je věda? Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 3 / 103 HLAVNÍ OTÁZKA Jak vymezit vědu? Zajišťuje nám věda lepší způsoby poznání? Jaký je postup vědeckého poznání? ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 4 / 103 ÚVOD ÚVOD Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 5 / 103 ÚVOD The Needs for Demarcation cf. Pigliucci and Boudry (2013), ... practical policy ex.: funding of institutions, procedures,... education ex.: creationism / intelligent design & evolution theory health care ex.: stem cells justice (expert testimonies) ex.: pyramid razor sharpener ... theoretical material starting points epistemological warrant ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 6 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions preliminary questions Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 7 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions What do we want to demarcate? science branches of science good science bad science pseudo-science unscience parascience various types of systems of beliefs non-science ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 8 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions What do we want to achieve? description prescription Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 9 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions What should we take under consideration? theories systems of propositions people practices ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 10 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions Is demarcation universal? time/history domains/fields/branches universal Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 11 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions Is demarcation fixed? once a science/non-science, always a sciences/non-science a science/non-science can turn out to be a non-science/science a science can turn out to be a non-science a non-science can turn out to be a science Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 12 / 103 ÚVOD preliminary questions How can this be done? examination of theories empirical examination ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 13 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER KARL RAIMUND POPPER Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 14 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER introduction introduction Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 15 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER introduction domains of interest Popper (2014: 34) Marx’s theory of history Freud’s psychoanalysis Adler’s individual psychology Einstein’s theory of relativity “It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact their weakness.” Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 16 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems of induction problems of induction Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 17 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems of induction two problems of induction Popper (2005) psychological Why do We Believe ... logical logical form justification of induction Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 18 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of theories Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 19 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of statements Popper (2005) singular statements individual concept universal statements numerically universal statements strictly universal statements Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 20 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of statements Popper (2005) exitential statements non-existence statements Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 21 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories forms of theories Popper (2005) rigorous axiomatized system consistency epistemological usefulness prohibiton possibility of falsification Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 22 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER forms of theories Fries’s Trilemma Popper (2005) psychologism infinite regress dogmatism version of dogmatism no firm base observability Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 23 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER falsifiability falsifiability Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 24 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER falsifiability components theory initial conditions basic statements Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 25 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems & critique problems & critique Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 26 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems & critique problems & critique immunizations determination of theories missing empirical base not corresponding to scientiffic practise Thick Skin Problem Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 27 / 103 KARL RAIMUND POPPER problems & critique Thick Skin of Scientists Lakatos (1978: 5–4) “Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely because facts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis to explain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note that scientists talk about anomalies, recalcitrant instances, not refutations.” Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 28 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 29 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 1st edition revolutions 1st edition Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 30 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 1st edition The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st edition) Kuhn (1962) pre-paradigm period period of normal science cumulative proces dogmas period of non-normal science period of extraordinary science period of scientific revolution Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 31 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a paradigm critique of a paradigm Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 32 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a paradigm The Nature of a paradigm Masterman (1970) metaparadigms sociological paradigms artefact/construct paradigms Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 33 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a paradigm The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Shapere (1964) “paradigms cannot, in general, be formulated adequately” “cannot be described adequately in words“ Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 34 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 2nd edition revolutions 2nd edition Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 35 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN revolutions 2nd edition The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (other editions) Kuhn (2012) symbolic generalizations models values exemplars ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 36 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a disciplinary matrix critique of a disciplinary matrix Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 37 / 103 THOMAS SAMUEL KUHN critique of a disciplinary matrix Critique of the Paradigm Concept Shapere (1971) We are unusre what is content of disciplinary matrix. Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 38 / 103 IMRE LAKATOS IMRE LAKATOS Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 39 / 103 IMRE LAKATOS types of falsification types of falsification Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 40 / 103 IMRE LAKATOS types of falsification Naïve dogmatic firm empirical base metodological conventional empirical base passivists vs. activist Sophisticated rules of falsification or elimination rules of acceptance Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 41 / 103 IMRE LAKATOS research programmes research programmes Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 42 / 103 IMRE LAKATOS research programmes Structure of Research Programmes Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 43 / 103 IMRE LAKATOS research programmes Sophisticated Falsification Lakatos (1978: 116) „For the sophisticated falsificationist a scientific theory T is falsified if and only if another theory T’ has been proposed with the following characteristics: (I) T’ has excess empirical content over T: that is, it predicts novel facts, that is, facts improbable in the light of, or even forbidden, by T;3 (2) T’ explains the previous success of T, that is, all the unrefuted content of T is included (within the limits of observational error) in the content of T’; and (3) some of the excess content of T’ is corroborated.“ Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 44 / 103 THE DEMISE THE DEMISE Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 45 / 103 THE DEMISE The Demise of the Demarcation Problem Laudan (1983) “[...] we ought to drop terms like ’pseudo-science’ and ’unscientific’ from our vocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.” “[...] The ’scientific’ status of those claims is altogether irrelevant.” Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 46 / 103 GOOD SCIENCE GOOD SCIENCE Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 47 / 103 GOOD SCIENCE Merton Merton Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 48 / 103 GOOD SCIENCE Merton Institutional Imperatives Merton (1973) Universalism “Communism” Disinterestedness Organized skepticism Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 49 / 103 EPISTEMIC FIELDS EPISTEMIC FIELDS Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 50 / 103 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Bunge & Mahner Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 51 / 103 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007: 549) Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 52 / 103 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007) 1. Community C: the group or community C of knowers or knowledge seekers 2. Society S: the society S hosting the activities of C 3. Domain D: the domain or universe of discourse D of the members of C, i.e., the collection of factual or fictional objects the members of C refer to in their discourse 4. Philosophical background or general outlook G: (a) Ontological assumptions (b) Epistemological assumptions (c) Methodological principles (d) Semantic assumptions (e) Axiological and moral assumptions Logical values Semantical values Methodological values Attitudinal- and moral values 5. The formal background F: a collection of logical or mathematical assumptions or theories taken for granted in the process of inquiry Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 53 / 103 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007) 6. The specific background knowledge B: a collection of knowledge items (statements, procedures, methods, etc.) borrowed from other epistemic fields 7. The problematics P: the collection of problems concerning the nature, value or use of the members of D, as well as problems concerning other components listed here, such as G or F 8. The fund of knowledge K: the collection of knowledge items (propositions, theories, procedures, etc.) obtained by the previous and current members of C in the course of their cognitive activities 9. The aims A: the cognitive, practical or moral goals of the members of C in the pursuit of their specific activities 10. The methodics M: the collection of general and specific methods (or techniques) used by the members of C in their inquiry of the members of D Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 54 / 103 EPISTEMIC FIELDS Bunge & Mahner Structure of Epistemic Fields Mahner (2007) 11. The systemicity condition: There is at least one other field of research S’ such that S and S’ share some items in G, F, B, K, A and M; and either the domain D of one of the two fields S and S’ is included in that of the other, or each member of the domain of one of the fields is a component of a system in the domain of the other. 12. The changeability or progressiveness condition: The membership of the conditions 5–10 changes, however slowly and meanderingly at times, as a result of research in the same field or as a result of research in neighboring disciplines. Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 55 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 56 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Derksen Derksen Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 57 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Derksen Pseudo-Scientists Derksen (1993, 2001) “profile of the pseudo-sciences can be gained from the scientific pretensions of the pseudo-scientist” a epistemic-social-psychological profile Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 58 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE Derksen The Seven Sins Derksen (1993, 2001) Dearth of Decent Evidence pretence to producing reliable knowledge, obtained via trustworthy methods Unfounded Immunizations accepting only particular interpretations of the data Ur-Tenptations uncritically assigning a deeper significance to prima facie spectacular coincidences Magic Methods Insights of Innatates Only the initiate has the right perspective on the truth. All-Explaining Theories Uncritical and Excessive Pretensions Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 59 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE immunizations immunizations Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 60 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE immunizations Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms Boudry and Braeckman (2011: 146) “We define an ‘immunizing strategy’ as an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic ‘defense mechanism’ is defined as an internal structural feature of a belief system, which has the same effect of deflecting rational arguments and empirical refutations.” Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 61 / 103 BAD AND PSEUDO-SCIENCE immunizations Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms Boudry and Braeckman (2011: 146) Conceptual Equivocations & Moving Targets Multiple Endpoints Deflationary Revisions Postdiction and Feedback Loops Conspiracy Thinking Turning the Evidence on its Head Explaining the Motives for Disbelief Changing the Rules of Play Invisible Escape Clauses Tailoring Around the Phenomena Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 62 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 63 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? Fanelli (2009) scientists fabrication, falsification or modification of data or results other questionable research practices admitted 1.97% 33.7% know of 14.12% 72% Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 64 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS The trouble with retractions Van Noorden (2011: 27) Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 65 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types sorts & types Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 66 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types Misbehaviours of Various Kinds Fanelli (2011: 85) Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 67 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types Sorts and Types of Misconducts National Science Foundation (2002) Ethical Misconducts Violations of ethical code. Research Misconducts “Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing or performing research [...], reviewing research proposals [...], or in reporting research results [...]” Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 68 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS sorts & types National Science Foundation (2002) Plagiarism “means the appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results or words without giving appropriate credit”. Fabrication “means making up data or results and recording or reporting them”. Falsification “means manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record”. Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 69 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS practical characterization practical characterization Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 70 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS practical characterization National Science Foundation (2002) A finding of research misconduct requires that— 1. There be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant research community; and 2. The research misconduct be committed intentionally, or knowingly, or recklessly; and 3. The allegation be proven by a preponderance of evidence. (b) Research misconduct does not include honest error or differences of opinion. Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 71 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS practical characterization Main Characteristics a methodology or a code an intentionality a knowingness a recklessness a preponderance of evidence Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 72 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems problems Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 73 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problems of Distinction: Questions What is the relation between ethical misconducts and scientific misconducts? Is any ethical misconduct a scientific misconduct? Is any scientific misconduct an ethical misconduct? How to distinguish sceintific misconducts and honest errors? Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 74 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problem of Violatting a Methodology or a Code of Conducting The Tuskegee Syphilis Study The Monster Study Unit 731 introspection Dr. Roger Poisson Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 75 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problem of Intention Schön scandal Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 76 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems Problem of Knowledge of Consequences Little Albert experiment Milgram Experiment Stanford Prison Experiment Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 77 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS problems The Myth of Self-Correction in Science Stroebe, Postmes, and Spears (2012) Fraud Detectors Reducing the Risks peer reviews rewards replications cost whistleblowing chance of discovery Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 78 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS conclusion conclusion Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 79 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS conclusion Problems of Distinction: Answers What is the relation between ethical misconducts and scientific misconducts? Is any ethical misconduct a scientific misconduct? Is any scientific misconduct an ethical misconduct? Any scientific misconduct can be seen as an ethical misconduct but not vice versa. Be aware of The Moralistic Fallacy (Davis, 1978). How to distinguish sceintific misconducts and honest errors? The only difference between scientific misconduct and honest errors is an intention. Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 80 / 103 SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCTS conclusion New Definitions of Scientific Misconduct Fanelli (2013) scientific misconduct as distorted reporting “any omission or misrepresentation of the information necessary and sufficient to evaluate the validity and significance of research, at the level appropriate to the context in which the research is communicated”. no difference between honest errors and scientific misconducts Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 81 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 82 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING problems problems Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 83 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING problems Some Problems decreasing credibility too much science predators predatory publishers predatory conference Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 84 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility decreasing credibility Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 85 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility Pop-science increasing number of pseudo-scientific claims, papers, shows... Dr. Oz misreporting of scientific results, researches... Could sniffing flatulence be GOOD for you? Potent gas can help prevent cancer, strokes and heart attacks, claim scientists (Mail Online 2014-07-11) Study: Smelling farts may be good for your health (The Week 2014-07-11) Silent, not deadly; how farts cure diseases (The Guardian 2014-07-11) Farts can fight strokes, heart attacks and dementia, scientists claim (The Mirror 2015-11-08) Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 86 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility Biased Researches funding sustainability ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 87 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING decreasing credibility Poor Orientation & Biased Knowledge Rosling (2016): The Ignorance Project Project Implicit (2016): Project Implicit Moralistic Fallacy Gould (1996): The mismeasure of man Rushton and Jensen (2005): Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy ... Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 88 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators predators Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 89 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Beall’s list List of potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Criteria (Beall, 2015): Editor and Staff Business management Integrity Other Poor journal standards / practice Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 90 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Beall (2016) Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 91 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Testing absurd, meaningless texts Sokal (1996): Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity “The content and methodology of postmodern science thus provide powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project, understood in its broadest sense: the transgressing of boundaries, the breaking down of barriers, the radical democratization of all aspects of social, economic, political and cultural life. Conversely, one part of this project must involve the construction of a new and truly progressive science that can serve the needs of such a democratized society-to-be.” (Sokal, 1996: 11) automaticly generated texts PDOS research group (2016): An Automatic CS Paper Generator Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 92 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Pseudo-scientists (cf. Derksen (1993, 2001)) “profile of the pseudo-sciences can be gained from the scientific pretensions of the pseudo-scientist” Derksen (1993) a epistemic-social-psychological profile.5 Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 93 / 103 SCIENCTIFIC PUBLISHING predators Pseudo-scientists (cf. Derksen (1993, 2001)) Dearth of Decent Evidence Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 94 / 103 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 95 / 103 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR Co si odnést? Teorie potřebuje praxi. Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 96 / 103 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR důležité pojmy a koncepty I POJMY A KONCEPTY dělení vědy problém indukce povaha tvrzení existenciální, non-existenciální singulární, universální empirická báze Friesovo trilema verifikace falsifikace naivní, metodologická asymetrie verifikace a falsifikace ad-hoc hypotézy Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 97 / 103 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR důležité pojmy a koncepty II paradigma / disciplinární matice vědecká období předparadigmatické období období normální vědy období ne-normální vědy výzkumný program degenerativní a progresivní tvrdé jádro, ochranný pás, heuristiky demarkace vědy falsifikovatelnost řešení hádanek výzkumné programy Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 98 / 103 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR důležité pojmy a koncepty III PROBLÉMY Jak lze rozlišit vědu a ne-vědu? Proč potřebujeme vědu? K čemu vede asymetrie mezi verifikací a falsifikací? Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 99 / 103 SHRNUTÍ A ZÁVĚR Frauds in Philosophy? fauxphilnews (2012) “Saul Kripke resigned yesterday from his position [...] a team of philosophers from Oxford University [...] were systematically unable to reproduce the results of thought experiments reported by Kripke in his groundbreaking Naming and Necessity. The team, led by Timothy Williamson, first became suspicious of Naming and Necessity after preliminary results raised questions about related work by Hilary Putnam. While the group was initially unable to confirm that water is H2O on Twin Earth, the results turned out to be due to contaminated research materials—one of the researchers’ minds had been contaminated by Chomskyan internalist semantics.” Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2020 100 / 103 ZDROJE I Beall, J. (2015). Criteria for determining predatory open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from https://scholarlyoa.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/ criteria-2015.pdf,(accessed2015-02-14 Beall, J. (2016). Beall’s list: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers. Scholarly Open Access. Retrieved from https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia, 39(1), 145–161. Davis, B. D. (1978). The moralistic fallacy. Nature, 272, 390. Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24(1), 17–42. Derksen, A. A. (2001). The Seven Strategies of the Sophisticated Pseudo-Scientist: a look into Freud’s rhetorical tool box. Journal for general philosophy of science, 32(2), 329–350. Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? a systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PloS one, 4(5), 5738. Fanelli, D. (2011). The black, the white and the grey areas: Towards an international and interdisciplinary definition of scientific misconduct. In T. Mayer & N. Steneck (Eds.), Promoting research integrity in a global environment (pp. 79–90). World Scientific Publishing Company. Fanelli, D. (2013). Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature, 494(7436), 149–149. fauxphilnews. (2012). Kripke resigns as report alleges he faked results of thought experiments. Retrieved from https://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/ kripke-resigns-after-allegations-of-academic-fraud/ Gould, S. J. (1996). The Mismeasure of Man. WW Norton & Company. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press. Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press. Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (Vol. 1; J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge university press. Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis, 111–127. Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from non-science. General philosophy of science: Focal issues, 515–575. Masterman, M. (1970). The Nature of a Paradigm, w: Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A.(eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press. ZDROJE II Merton, R. K. (1973). The Normative Structure of Science. In N. W. Storer (Ed.), The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (pp. 267–278). University of Chicago Press. National Science Foundation. (2002). Misconduct in Science and Engineering: Final Rule, 45 CFR Part 689 (10-1-2 ed.). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/oig/_pdf/cfr/45-CFR-689.pdf (NSF = National Science Foundation) PDOS research group. (2016). SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator. Retrieved from https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/archive/scigen/#people Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (2013). The dangers of pseudoscience. New York Times, 10. Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge. Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge. Project Implicit. (2016). Project Implicit. Retrieved from https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/ Rosling, H. (2016). The Ignorance Project. GapMinder Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.gapminder.org/ignorance/ Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Wanted: More race realism, less moralistic fallacy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 11(2), 328–336. Shapere, D. (1964). The structure of scientific revolutions. The Philosophical Review, 73(3), 383–394. Shapere, D. (1971). The paradigm concept. JSTOR. Sokal, A. D. (1996). Transgressing the boundaries: Toward a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social text(46/47), 217–252. Stroebe, W., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2012). Scientific Misconduct and the Myth of Self-Correction in Science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(6), 670–688. Van Noorden, R. (2011). The trouble with retractions. Nature, 478(7367), 26–28. Tato prezentace vznikla za podpory Fondu rozvoje Masarykovy univerzity Projekt: MUNI/FR/1266/2017 Inovace výuky filozofie a etiky pro studenty ESF