Základy filozofie
filozofie pseudo-vědy
Tomáš Ondráček
ondracek.t@mail.muni.cz
Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University
2021
ÚVOD
konspirační teorie
Lindner (2017)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 2 / 61
ÚVOD otázky
otázky
• Co je to pseudo-věda?
• Proč je pseudo-věda problém?
• Může se věda vyrovnat s pseudo-vědou?
• Jak lze obecně přistupovat k pseudo-vědě?
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 3 / 61
CO?
The Face
Voyager 2 (2018)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 4 / 61
CO?
příklady I
• 2012 Doomsday Scare
• Ancient Aliens
• Apollo Moon Landing Hoax
• Astrology
• Crop Circles
• Face on Mars
• Bermuda Triangle
• Cryptozoology
• Flat Earth Theory
• Hollow Earth Theory
• Megalithic or 366 Geometry
• Mythical Creatures
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 5 / 61
CO?
příklady II
• Channeling
• Dowsing
• Electronic Voice Phenomenon (EVP)
• Extrasensory Perception (ESP)
• Levitation
• Numerology
• Conversion Therapy
• Hypnosis
• Primal Therapy
• Polygraph
• Psychoanalysis
• Subliminal Advertising
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 6 / 61
CO?
příklady III
• Body Language
• Dianetics
• Feng Shui
• Handwriting Analysis
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 7 / 61
CO? pseudo-věda
Structure of Epistemic Fields
(Mahner, 2007: 549)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 8 / 61
CO? pseudo-věda
Characteristics of Pseudo-Scientists
and Pseudo-Sciences
(Gardner, 1957)
• Gardner
• isolation from colleagues
• tendency toward paranoia
I. considers himself a genius
II. regards his colleagues as ignorant blockheads
insults and accusations
III. believe of unjustly persecution and discrimination
IV. compulsions to attacking the greatest scientists and
the best established theories
V. tendencies to write in a complex jargon
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 9 / 61
CO? pseudo-věda
Lugg: pseudo-science and fallacies
(Lugg, 1987: 226)
If these observations are correct, there is an important analogy
to be drawn between pseudoscientific theories and fallacious
arguments. In both cases, it may indeed be necessary
to engage in empirical analysis to determine what is being
claimed. A pseudoscientific theory, like a fallacious argument,
may be obscurely presented and even when clearly
presented it may misrepresent what its proponents intend.
Beyond this, however, empirical analysis is neither required
nor appropriate. We no more need to know anything about
the world to say that theories are pseudoscientific than we
need to know anything about it to say that arguments are
invalid. Judgements about scientificity, like judgements of
validity, have nothing to do with empirical well-foundedness
and truth.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 10 / 61
CO? pseudo-věda
Derksen: The Seven Sins
(Derksen, 1993, 2001)
• Dearth of Decent Evidence
• pretense to producing reliable knowledge,
obtained via trustworthy methods
• Unfounded Immunizations
• accepting only particular interpretations of the data
• Ur-Temptations
• 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 ·2021 11 / 61
CO? pseudo-věda
Minimum of the Demarcation
(Ondráček, 2020)
Any scientific discussion has to aspire to critical discussion
and has to be done in a scientific context
(has to be labeled by protagonists as scientific).
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 12 / 61
CO? imunizace
Popper: Conventionalism
(Popper, 2005b: 15); (Popper, 2005a: 58, 61)
I very soon found that every theory can be “immunized” (this
excellent term is due to Hans Albert) against criticism. If we
allow such immunization, then every theory becomes unfalsifiable.
Thus we must exclude at least some immunizations.
Only the ‘laws of nature’ are simple; and these, the conventionalist
holds, are our own free creations; our inventions;
our arbitrary decisions and conventions.
The only way to avoid conventionalism is by taking a decision:
the decision not to apply its methods.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 13 / 61
CO? imunizace
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 ·2021 14 / 61
CO? imunizace
Popper: Types of Immunizations
(Popper, 2005a: 62)
Types
introduction
of ad hoc hypotheses
modification
of ostensive (or explicit) definition
adoption
of sceptical attitude
as to the reliability of the experimenter justifications
or the experimenter herself
cast doubts
on the acumen of the theoretician
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 15 / 61
CO? imunizace
Popper: Types of Immunizations
(Popper, 2005a: 62)
The list makes no claim to completeness: it must be left to
the investigator, especially in the fields of sociology and psychology
(the physicist may hardly need the warning) to guard
constantly against the temptation to employ new conventionalist
stratagems–a temptation to which psychoanalysts,
for example, often succumb.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 16 / 61
CO? imunizace
Immunizing Strategies
and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms
(Boudry & 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 ·2021 17 / 61
PROČ?
problémy
• zdroje a náklady
• bezpečnost
• rozhodování
• ...
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 18 / 61
PROČ? zdroje a náklady
feng shui
Henry (2019)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 19 / 61
PROČ? bezpečnost
vakcinace I/II
Volfová (2018)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 20 / 61
PROČ? bezpečnost
vakcinace II/II
• Common good (společné dobro)?
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 21 / 61
PROČ? bezpečnost
plochá Země
Koubek (2018)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 22 / 61
PROČ? bezpečnost
zdravotní péče
ČTK (2018)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 23 / 61
PROČ? rozhodování
volby
Aktuálně.cz (2018)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 24 / 61
PROČ? rozhodování
konspirační myšlení
• Věříte v konspirace?
• Jaký je problém konspirací?
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 25 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Conceptual Equivocations & Moving Targets
• Multiple Endpoints
• predictions in horoscopes (Gilovich (1991: 58–59))
• Nostradamus (Hines (2003); Marks (2000: 262–266))
• Deflationary Revisions
• Jehovah’s witnesses (Zygmunt (1970: 931, 934))
• Freud’s theory of the libido (Cioffi (1998: 16))
• postmodernisms and social constructivism (Kukla (2000: x))
• “switcheroos” and “reverse-switcheroos” (Kukla (2000: x))
• “Motte and Bailey Doctrines”
(Shackel (2005: 298); Fusfield (1993))
• Intelligent Design, Creationists (Behe) (Behe (1996: 39))
• Intelligent Design, Creationists (Demski) (Perakh
(2004: 64–75))
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 26 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Conceptual Equivocations & Moving Targets
Multiple Endpoints
(van Eemeren, Grootendorst, & Eemeren, 2004; Ward, 2007: 206)
Un Empereur naistra pres d’Italie,
Qui a l’Empire sera vendu bien cher;
Diront avec quelz gens il se ralie,
Qu’on trouvera moins prince que boucher.
An Emperor shall be born near Italy,
Bought by the Empire at a bankrupt rate;
You’d say the herd, he gathers to himself,
Denote him butcher rather than a prince.
• P-D 10 Language Use Rule
• Discussants may not use any formulations that are insufficiently clear or confusingly
ambiguous, and they may not deliberately misinterpret the other party’s formulations.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 27 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Multiple Endpoints
(Ondráček, 2020)
D2
D1
Dx W
B
C
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 28 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Multiple Endpoints
(Ondráček, 2020)
W1
(z → hf )
B1
(t → h)
(h ↔ hf )
((hf ∧ i) → z)
Bi
i
C1/D2
hf
W2
(z ∧ (z → hf )) → t)
IS1a
((hf ∧ i) → (z1 ∨ z2 ∨ z... ∨ zx))
C2
t
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 29 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Deflationary Revisions
Intelligent Design, Creationists (Behe)
Switcheroos
(Behe, 1996; Kukla, 2000: 39)
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of
several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the
basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts
causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly
(that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which
continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive
modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor
to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is
by definition nonfunctional.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 30 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Deflationary Revisions
Intelligent Design, Creationists (Behe)
Switcheroos
(Ondráček, 2020)
D2
D1 C1
C2
D2
D1 Q1
Q2
C
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 31 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Postdiction and Feedback Loops
• the belief in the efficacy of rituals and magic
(Boyer (1994: 144, 207); Evans-Pritchard (1937))
• the belief in the therapeutic power of healing crystals, chakra
stimulation, and homeopathy
• parapsychology
(Wiseman (2010: 38); Gilovich (1991: 21); Randi (1981: 13))
• water divining (Randi (1981: 13))
• Freudian psychoanalysis: the etiology of psychological illness
(Freud (1924: 119))
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 32 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Postdiction and Feedback Loops
(Ondráček, 2020)
Da
Db
nonDa
C
nonC
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 33 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Conspiracy Thinking
• Turning the Evidence on its Head
• “errant data” (Keeley (1999: 118))
• Explaining the Motives for Disbelief
• Freud’s Psychoanalysis
(Crews (1986: 14); Gellner (1985); Freud (1957: 39))
• Defenders of Marxism
• Young Earth Creationism (Morris (1963: 93))
• UFOs and alien abductions (Jacobs (1998: 112, 117, 258))
• Scientology (Foster (1971: 134))
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 34 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Turning Evidence on its Head
errant data
(Ondráček, 2020)
Do non − Cot
D
Wot
Bot
Wot2
Cot
Dn
Wk
Bk
Ck
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 35 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Changing the Rules of Play
• postmodernist philosophers and radical social constructivists
(Shackel (2005: 311–319))
• alternative medicine (Gordon (1996); Williams (1980))
• homeopathy (Guttentag (1940))
• psychoanalysts
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 36 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Changing Rules of Play
(Shackel, 2005: 312)
Firstly, the metaphilosophical claim is made that philosophy
cannot properly be done except negatively: that to occupy
a position is already to be mistaken. I am going to refer to
this position as the No-Position Position. Secondly, alogosia
is asserted: true normative theories of objective rationality
are not available; whatever we take to be the canons of rationality
are constructions, so could have been constructed
differently, and although there may be some ways in which
they could not be constructed, among those ways in which
they can be constructed there are no better or worse ways of
constructing them.“
• P-D 2 Obligation to Defend Rule
• Discussants who advance a standpoint may not refuse to defend this standpoint when
requested to do so.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 37 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Invisible Escape Clauses
• Tailoring Around the Phenomena
• Omphalos hypothesis by Philip Gosse (1857) (Gosse (1857))
• the idea of negative psi (“catapsi”)
(Wiseman (2010); Sheldrake (1995); Bonewitz (1989: 55))
• Franz Anton Mesmer and magnetizers (Mackay (1974
(1841): 290))
• Parapsychologists and “error phenomenon” (or “decline
effect”)
(Kennedy (2003: 67); Kennedy (2001); Humphrey
(1996: 152); Beloff (1994: 7, 11))
• Imponderabilia
• the astrologer’s belated invocation of the formation of stars
(at the moment of conception)
• Bigfoot and UFO (Zuefle (1999: 27); Mack (1995))
• Freudian psychoanalysis and quantitative factor
(Cioffi (1998: 119); Esterson (1993))
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 38 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Tailoring Around the Phenomena
Franz Anton Mesmer and magnetizers
(Mackay, 1974 (1841): 294)
And it should be especially remarked that the magnetisers
do not lay claim to a universal efficacy for their fluid; the
strong and the healthy cannot be magnetised; the incredulous
cannot be magnetised; those who reason upon it cannot
be magnetised; those who firmly believe in it can be magnetised;
the weak in body can be magnetised, and the weak
in mind can be magnetised. And lest, from some cause or
other, individuals of the latter classes should resist the magnetic
charm, the apostles of the science declare that there
are times when even they cannot be acted upon; the presence
of one scorner or unbeliever may weaken the potency
of the fluid and destroy its efficacy. In M. Deleuze’s instructions
to a magnetiser, he expressly says, ‘Never magnetise
before inquisitive persons!’
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 39 / 61
MOŽNOSTI Examples
Tailoring Around the Phenomena
Franz Anton Mesmer and magnetizers
(Ondráček, 2020)
Da
nonCDb W
B
Q
R
C
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 40 / 61
JAK?
diskuze
Česká televize (n.d.)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 41 / 61
JAK?
zneužití
(Kingsbury & Dare, 2017)
• Cherry-Picking
• Using Contentious Scientific Results Without Appropriate
Reservation
• Arguing Illegitimately from Scientific Authority
• Applying Scientific Theories or Data Too Far from Their Domain:
Stump, Mirror Neurons, and the Paradox of Fiction
• Drawing Philosophical Conclusions Too Quickly from Scientific
Theories or Data:
Harman on Character Traits
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 42 / 61
JAK?
možnosti
(Kingsbury & Dare, 2017)
• Being Explicit About the Role the Scientific Theory or Empirical
Data Are Playing in a Philosophical Argument
• Explicitly Addressing the Credibility of the Scientific Data or
Theory
• Using Review Articles and Metastudies
• Collaborating with Scientists
• Experimental Philosophy?
• Rigorous and Informed Peer Review
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 43 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
Plandemic
• Plandemic: The Hidden Agenda Behind Covid-19 (2020)
• Plandemic: Indoctornation (2020)
• režisér/producent: Mikki Willis
• hlavní postavy: Judy Anne Mikovits
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 44 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
Plandemic: Frenkel, Decker, and Alba (2020)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 45 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
konspirační teorie: van Mulukom et al. (2020)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 46 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
kosnpirační myšlení
• dvě základní verze (Boudry and Braeckman (2011)):
• postavení důkazu na hlavu
• vysvětlení motivů pro nedůvěru
• útok na podporu (backing, Toulmin (2003))
• motivované usuzování
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 47 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
Plandemic: Frenkel et al. (2020)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 48 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
práce s konspiračním myšlení
• hledání společné podpory (backingu)
• metadiskuze a subdiskuze
• společné hodnoty
• nevědecká dikuze
• sporná účinnost diskuze o faktech (datech)
• časová náročnost
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 49 / 61
praxe v diskuzích
Plandemic: další rétorické prvky
• narativ výzkumu (dobro vs. zlo)
• populismus (Eberl, Huber, and Greussing (2021))
• srozumitelnost, práce s pravděpodobností a jistota
• ...
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 50 / 61
DOPLNĚNÍ
Kuhn and Lakatos: criticism
(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 ·2021 51 / 61
DOPLNĚNÍ
Popper: Revaluation
(Popper, 2005b: 43)
On the other hand, I also realized that we must not exclude
all immunizations, not even all which introduced ad
hoc auxiliary hypotheses. For example the observed motion
of Uranus might have been regarded as a falsification of
Newton’s theory. Instead the auxiliary hypothesis of an outer
planet was introduced ad hoc, thus immunizing the theory.
This turned out to be fortunate; for the auxiliary hypothesis
was a testable one, even if difficult to test, and it stood up to
tests successfully.
All this shows not only that some degree of dogmatism is
fruitful, even in science, but also that logically speaking falsifiability,
or testability, cannot be regarded as a very sharp
criterion.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 52 / 61
DOPLNĚNÍ
Popper: admissibility of immunizations
• empirical content
• new theory
• reasonableness
• ...
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 53 / 61
DOPLNĚNÍ
Derksen: reprehensibility of immunizations
(Derksen, 1993: 24)
Yet, immunizing is not always reprehensible. In fact, as far
as the argumentation is concerned there is nothing wrong
with immunization. Immunization is nothing but arguing on
the assumed truth of one’s theory. There is nothing against
this, as long as the theory is well-confirmed. Immunization
becomes reprehensible only when it is unfounded.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 54 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
science as a tool
(Sagan, 2006)
My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the
traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are
provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those
gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe
and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god
does not exist, then our curiosity and our intelligence are
the essential tools for managing our survival in an extremely
dangerous time. In either case the enterprise of knowledge
is consistent surely with science; it should be with religion,
and it is essential for the welfare of the human species.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 55 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
ethics
A Brief History of Philosophical Skepticism (2019)
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 56 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
OVERVIEW
ÚVOD
CO?
imunizace
PROČ?
zdroje a náklady
bezpečnost
rozhodování
MOŽNOSTI
Conceptual Equivocations & Moving Targets
Multiple Endpoints
Deflationary Revisions
Postdiction and Feedback Loops
Conspiracy Thinking
Changing the Rules of Play
Invisible Escape Clauses
Tailoring Around the Phenomena
JAK?
praxe v diskuzích (o COVID-19)
DOPLNĚNÍOndráček ·ZAFI ·2021 57 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
bibliography I
Aktuálně.cz. (2018). Z čeho má Kim Čong-un strach, proč má soukromý záchod? A umí plavat? Zkuste si, co
víte o KLDR. https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/zahranici/kviz-korea-kldr-summit-kim/
r~8bcf26484a0c11e8aca5ac1f6b220ee8/.
Behe, M. J. (1996). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution. Simon and Schuster.
Beloff, J. (1994). Lessons of history. The Journal ofthe American Society for Psychical Research, 88(7), 7–22.
Bonewitz, I. (1989). Real magic. Samuel Weiser.
Boudry, M., & Braeckman, J. (2011). Immunizing strategies and epistemic defense mechanisms. Philosophia,
39(1), 145–161.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness ofreligious ideas: A cognitive theory ofreligion. University of California press.
A Brief History of Philosophical Skepticism. (2019, October). Existential Comics. Retrieved from
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/310
Cioffi, F. (1998). Freud and the question ofpseudoscience. Open Court.
Crews, F. C. (1986). Skeptical engagements. Oxford University Press.
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.
Eberl, J.-M., Huber, R. A., & Greussing, E. (2021). From populism to the “plandemic”: why populists believe in
covid-19 conspiracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 31(sup1), 272–284.
Česká televize. (n.d.). Máte slovo s m. jílkovou. Retrieved from https://www.ceskatelevize.cz/porady/
10175540660-mate-slovo-s-m-jilkovou/215411030520035
Esterson, A. (1993). Seductive mirage: An exploration of the work of sigmund freud. Open Court.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1937). Witchcraft, oracles and magic among the Azande (Vol. 12). Oxford London.
Foster, J. G. (1971). Enquiry into the practice and effects of scientology. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Frenkel, S., Decker, B., & Alba, D. (2020). How the ‘plandemic’movie and its falsehoods spread widely online.
The New York Times, 20.
Freud, S. (1924). Collected papers, vol. 2. The Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1957). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of sigmund freud. , 11.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 58 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
bibliography II
Fusfield, W. D. (1993). Some pseudoscientific features of transcendental-pragmatic grounding projects.
Mensch und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des kritischen Rationalismus.
Gardner, M. (1957). Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science. Courier Corporation.
Gellner, E. (1985). The psychoanalytic movement: The cunning of unreason. Paladin.
Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. Free press.
Gordon, J. S. (1996). Manifesto for a new medicine. Addison-Wesley.
Gosse, P. H. (1857). Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot. J. Van Voorst.
Guttentag, O. E. (1940). Trends toward homeopathy: Present and past. Bulletin of the History ofMedicine, 8,
1172–1193.
Henry, J. S. (2019, May). How corruption in forensic science is harming the criminal justice system. Retrieved
from https://theconversation.com/
how-corruption-in-forensic-science-is-harming-the-criminal-justice-system-108975
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Humphrey, N. (1996). Soul searching: Human nature and supernatural belief. Vintage.
Jacobs, D. M. (1998). The threat: The secret agenda: What the aliens really want ... and how they plan to get it.
Simon & Schuster.
Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 109–126.
Kennedy, J. E. (2001). Why is psi so elusive? a review and proposed model. The Journal of Parapsychology,
65(3), 219–246.
Kennedy, J. E. (2003). The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of psi: A summary and
hypotheses. The Journal of Parapsychology, 67(1), 53–75.
Kingsbury, J., & Dare, T. (2017). The philosophical use and misuse of science. Metaphilosophy, 48(4), 449–466.
Koubek, V. (2018). Propagátor teorie o placaté Zemi „vzlétl do kosmu“: Tvrdé přistání ale přežil.
https://www.stoplusjednicka.cz/
propagator-teorie-o-placate-zemi-vzletl-do-kosmu-tvrde-pristani-ale-prezil.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. Routledge.
Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scientific research programmes (Vol. 1; J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.).
Cambridge university press.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 59 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
bibliography III
Lindner, T. (2017). VÍRA VE SPIKLENECKÉ TEORIE OPĚT ROSTE. STAČÍ PÁR KLIKNUTÍ.
https://www.respekt.cz/denni-menu/vira-ve-spiklenecke-teorie-opet-roste-diky
-internetu-jedinym-lekem-je-medialni-gramotnost.
Lugg, A. (1987). Bunkum, Flim-Flam and Quackery: Pseudoscience as a Philosophical Problem. Dialectica,
41(3), 221–230.
Mack, J. E. (1995). Abduction: Human encounters with aliens. Simon and Schuster.
Mackay, C. (1974 (1841)). Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. Barnes & Noble
Publishing.
Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from non-science. General philosophy of science: Focal issues,
515–575.
Marks, D. (2000). The psychology of the psychic. Prometheus books.
Morris, H. M. (1963). Twilight of evolution. Baker Pub Group.
Ondráček, T. (2020). Co jsou to imunizační strategie? (Disertační práce, Masarykova univerzita, Filozofická
fakulta, Brno). Retrieved from DostupnézWWW<https://is.muni.cz/th/q11v4/>
Perakh, M. (2004). Unintelligent design. Prometheus books.
Plandemic: Indoctornation. (2020). Elevate Films.
Plandemic: The hidden agenda behind covid-19. (2020). Elevate Films.
Popper, K. R. (2005a). The logic of scientific discovery. Routledge.
Popper, K. R. (2005b). Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. Routledge.
Randi, J. (1981). Selective test selection. Skeptical Inquirer, 5, 12–13.
Sagan, C. (2006). The varieties of scientific experience: A personal view of the search for god. Penguin.
Shackel, N. (2005). The vacuity of postmodernist methodology. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 295–320.
Sheldrake, R. (1995). Seven experiments that could change the world: A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary
science. Putnam Publishing Group.
ČTK. (2018). Nevyléčitelně nemocný britský chlapec Alfie Evans zemřel. Převoz a léčbu zakázal soud.
https://www.irozhlas.cz/zivotni-styl/spolecnost/
alfie-evans-smrt-velka-britanie-soud_1804281144_sam.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge university press.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 60 / 61
CONCLUSION & OVERVIEW
bibliography IV
van Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst, R., & Eemeren, F. H. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The
pragma-dialectical approach (Vol. 14). Cambridge University Press.
van Mulukom, V., Pummerer, L., Alper, S., Cavojova, V., Farias, J. E. M., Kay, C. S., ... others (2020). Antecedents
and consequences of covid-19 conspiracy theories: a rapid review of the evidence. PsyArXiv.
Volfová, T. (2018). Rodiče věří mýtům o očkování, roste výskyt spalniček. V Praze už je epidemie.
http://www.ceskatelevize.cz/ct24/domaci/
2445079-rodice-veri-mytum-o-ockovani-roste-vyskyt-spalnicek-v-praze-uz-je-epidemie.
Voyager 2. (2018, Aug). Face on mars illusion: Space amino. AminoApps. Retrieved from
https://aminoapps.com/c/space/page/blog/face-on-mars-illusion/
3WYz_0xrcBuo5Y2p0G7w6Ex2adnakE7JnQ
Ward, C. A. (2007). Oracles of nostradamus. Cosimo, Inc.
Williams, R. J. (1980). Biochemical individuality. University of Texas Press.
Wiseman, R. (2010). Heads i win, tails you lose. how parapsychologists nullify null results. Skeptical Inquirer,
34(1), 36–39.
Zuefle, D. M. (1999). Tracking bigfoot on the internet. Skeptical Inquirer, 23, 26–29.
Zygmunt, J. F. (1970). Prophetic failure and chiliastic identity: The case of jehovah’s witnesses. The American
Journal of Sociology, 75(6), 926–948.
Ondráček ·ZAFI ·2021 61 / 61