Search

Objective Methods Results Conclusion An extensive literature examines the prevalence of conspiracy theories and the factors that determine why some people believe them. Conspiracy theories are only one example of baseless beliefs, which we define as beliefs that are not epistemically warranted by the available evidence. The goals of this research were to determine if there are discrete domains of baseless beliefs and to identify the psychological and cognitive factors most closely associated with each type.We surveyed 435 U.S. adults about their baseless beliefs and measured an extensive set of cognitive, epistemological, and personal characteristics.Four distinct domains of baseless belief were discovered, which we label conservative controversies, classic coverups, magical thoughts, and pseudoscience. The data suggest the confidence people have in these beliefs differs across domains and reveal clear differences in the cognitive, epistemological, and personality factors predicting belief in each domain.Baseless beliefs encompass a number of distinct domains, and the psychological dynamics underlying belief acquisition vary across these domains. This finding suggests caution in generalizing from studies examining only one domain. The prominent role of conservatism documented in the literature on conspiracy theories, for example, is weaker or not present at all in other domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrated Information Theory (IIT) is one of the most prominent candidates for a theory of consciousness, although it has received much criticism for trying to live up to expectations. Based on the relevance of three issues generalized from the developments of IITs, we have summarized the main ideas of IIT into two levels. At the second level, IIT claims to be strictly anchoring consciousness, but the first level on which it is based is more about autonomous systems or systems that have reached some other critical complexity. In this paper, we argue that the clear gap between the two levels of explanation of IIT has led to these criticisms and that its panpsychist tendency plays a crucial role in this. We suggest that the problems of IIT are far from being "pseudoscience", and by adding more necessary elements, when the first level is combined with the second level, IIT can genuinely move toward an appropriate theory of consciousness that can provide necessary and sufficient interpretations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inspired by Bas van Fraassen's Stance Empiricism, Anjan Chakravartty has developed a pluralistic account of what he calls epistemic stances towards scientific ontology. In this paper, I examine whether Chakravartty's stance pluralism can exclude epistemic stances that licence pseudo-scientific practices like those found in Scientology. I argue that it cannot. Chakravartty's stance pluralism is therefore prone to a form of debilitating relativism. Consequently, we need (1) some ground or constraint in relation to which epistemic stances can be ranked by degrees, and (2) some way to demarcate science from pseudo-science so that we know what epistemic stances are about. Regarding (1), I argue that empirical detectability can serve as the ground in relation to which epistemic stances are ranked by degrees. Regarding (2), I argue for ranking sciences on a continuum according to established institutional criteria, rather than attempting to draw a strict demarcation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Comportamentalia is the property of Instituto de Psicologia y Educacion de la Universidad Veracruzana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Scientific medicine and homeopathy are interesting case studies for the ongoing project of demarcating science from pseudoscience. Much of the demarcation literature formulates abstract criteria for demarcating science from pseudoscience generally. In service of a more localist approach to the demarcation problem, I reconstruct a specific demarcating difference, the like comparison criterion, invoked by nineteenth century adherents to an early model of scientific medicine. If it is to remain relevant today, I argue that the like comparison criterion must be updated in our current era of epidemiological, evidence-based medicine to recognize the importance of assessing study bias and mechanistic implausibility in contemporary medical science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many pseudosciences, conspiracy theories and other unfounded belief systems have a self‐sealing nature, being equipped with defence mechanisms and immunizing strategies that protect them against counterevidence and criticism. In this article, we discuss the existence of 'epistemic black holes', belief systems which posit intelligent agents that are deliberately evading detection and thus sabotaging any investigation into their existence. These belief systems have the remarkable feature that they predict an absence of evidence in their favour, and even the discovery of counterevidence. The most obvious instances of such epistemic black holes are unfounded conspiracy theories, but examples crop up in other domains as well. We outline the development and cultural evolution of epistemic black holes, drawing from a number of case studies. Most importantly, because of their self‐sealing character and resilience to counterevidence, epistemic black holes suffer from a recurring problem of arbitrariness and proliferating alternatives. Shedding light on how epistemic black holes function can help to inoculate people against their enduring allure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respiratory function has become a global health priority. Not only is chronic respiratory disease a leading cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality, but the COVID-19 pandemic has heightened attention on respiratory health and the means of enhancing it. Subsequently, and inevitably, the respiratory system has become a target of the multi-trillion-dollar health and wellness industry. Numerous commercial, respiratory-related interventions are now coupled to therapeutic and/or ergogenic claims that vary in their plausibility: from the reasonable to the absurd. Moreover, legitimate and illegitimate claims are often conflated in a wellness space that lacks regulation. The abundance of interventions, the range of potential therapeutic targets in the respiratory system, and the wealth of research that varies in quality, all confound the ability for health and exercise professionals to make informed risk-to-benefit assessments with their patients and clients. This review focuses on numerous commercial interventions that purport to improve respiratory health, including nasal dilators, nasal breathing, and systematized breathing interventions (such as pursed-lips breathing), respiratory muscle training, canned oxygen, nutritional supplements, and inhaled L-menthol. For each intervention we describe the premise, examine the plausibility, and systematically contrast commercial claims against the published literature. The overarching aim is to assist health and exercise professionals to distinguish science from pseudoscience and make pragmatic and safe risk-to-benefit decisions.

Many practices available for use in health service psychology are ineffective or harmful. How we describe these practices is important to scientific discourse and science communication with policy-makers and the general public. The label "pseudoscience" is typically applied in these cases, though the meaning of pseudoscience varies widely creating a quagmire for transparent and accurate communication. To clarify this issue, we review several prominent definitions of pseudoscience as well as consider how the term is used amongst psychology scholars and science-communicators. We define two additional terms adapted from the medical literature, contemporary and alternative psychotherapies and low-value practices, and discuss their strengths and limitations. Finally, we recommend the broader category of low-value practices for use due to its definitional clarity, lack of competing definitions, and potential for clarifying research programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Among cognitive factors that can influence the endorsement of pseudoscientific beliefs, our study focuses on proneness to false memory generation. In this preregistered study, we presented 170 fluent English speakers residing in the USA with a misinformation task aimed at generating false memories. In this task, they first completed an event encoding stage, in which two events were narrated through sequentially presented pictures. One day later, they read a series of sentences relating the same events but which included several inaccurate descriptions aimed at producing a misinformation effect. Finally, we measured the influence of the misinformation manipulation over false memory generation. After completing the misinformation task, participants responded to a questionnaire measuring pseudoscientific beliefs. Our results showed a positive correlation between pseudoscience endorsement and false memory rates, which indicates that the latter might be a key factor influencing susceptibility to pseudoscience. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a link between the tendency to believe in pseudoscience and variability regarding proneness to develop false memories. Practical implications for the design of new interventions to effectively reduce pseudoscientific beliefs and their negative impact on our society are discussed.

Dissemination of news through social media is one of the biggest causes of increasing student’s trust in pseudoscience. The purpose of this correlational study was to analyze the relationship between belief in science and pseudoscience beliefs related to biology in high school students. This research entails a correlational study conducted through a survey methodology. The results of the study show that the ability to believe in science has a significant effect on students' belief in pseudoscience related to biology for high school students. Based on the research, the initial hypothesis of the study was rejected, that there is a positive relationship between belief in science and belief in pseudoscience related to biology, thus indicating that increasing students' confidence in science will also increase students' confidence in pseudoscience related to biology. This is due to the continuous spread of unscientific issues through social media which will affect the increase in trust in pseudoscience. The increase in pseudoscience is due to the lack of student media literacy so that it can affect the way students respond to news that is on social media. The lack of education regarding students' media literacy is a factor in increasing students' confidence in pseudoscience related to biology for high school students.

The messy politics of combating the COVID-19 pandemic, compounded by the confusion caused by the global (dis)infodemic, have propelled conspiracism from the fringes of society into the public mainstream. Despite the growing political impact of digitally enabled conspiracy theories, they are predominantly delegitimized on three fronts – as psychopathology, pseudoscience, and/or parapolitics. In contrast, this article employs three non-pathologizing conceptual counteroffers borrowed from critical theory, deconstructionist historiography, and citizenship studies – namely, cognitive mapping, narrative emplotment, and performative citizenship – to politicize conspiracy theorizing 'from below'. Using QAnon as a case-in-point, the article introduces two novel concepts that invite a sociological approach to conspiracism: first, the epistemic communities of the unreal, which designates the participatory, interactive, and decentralized nature of collaboratively creating unreal explanations of the real world; and second, grassroots conspiracism, which denotes the ways in which these bottom-up, horizontal, and collective meaning-making practices and knowledge-production processes are expanding spaces of and for politics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By manipulating inclusion criteria, one can prove whatever point one wishes in meta-analysis. This critique examines a recent meta-analysis claiming lithium ineffectiveness for suicidality, based on three biased features: inclusion of many large studies specifically designed to exclude suicidality, producing zero suicide outcomes in all groups (n = 1856), thereby artificially decreasing statistical significance; arbitrary exclusion of all trials prior to the year 2000, thereby excluding two randomized clinical trials which demonstrated benefit for lithium; and underreporting of placebo suicide events in a recent randomized trial. It thereby created a smaller effect size (two suicides with lithium versus five with placebo = RR = 0.42), though still beneficial for lithium, and a larger denominator of no events (total n for included studies = 2578), leading to the claim of statistical non-significance (95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.1–4.5). The same literature can be analyzed including the two excluded older studies, and including the two placebo deaths in the recent trial, producing a larger effect size (two suicides with lithium versus nine with placebo, RR = 0.25). Furthermore, uninformative studies with no events could be excluded (total n for included studies = 1203), as is standard practice in meta-analysis, producing statistically significant results (95% CIs 0.05, 0.83). This more complete, more accurate, and less biased meta-analysis is provided in this article. In short, including all studies with non-zero suicide outcomes, there is clear benefit for lithium. The recent meta-analysis is a classic example of pseudoscience, using scientific technique superficially to confirm, rather than refute, one's own opinions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The so-called "Moldavian language", invented by the Soviets in the 1920s, was just another instrument for the Soviet effort trying to assimilate people and to erase national identities, in order to make room for the "Soviet identity". The Gulags, the massacres, the deportations and assassinations were not enough to "convince" people to embrace the new Soviet identity, the Soviet Communists needed pseudo-science as well. But the so-called "Moldavian language" was more than just another Soviet social engineering, it was an integrate part of a geopolitical strategy aimed at dismembering Romania and at conquering more of Central and South-Eastern Europe. This explicit anti-Romanian and geopolitical objective was written down by the Soviets in the very birth certificate of the "Moldavian language" in 1924, and it was copied by Serbian authorities after WW2, trying to invent a "Vlach language" for the Romanian minority in Serbia. Neither Russia, nor Serbia have yet abandoned these efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Among cognitive factors that can influence the endorsement of pseudoscientific beliefs, our study focuses on proneness to false memory generation. In this preregistered study, we presented 170 fluent English speakers residing in the USA with a misinformation task aimed at generating false memories. In this task, they first completed an event encoding stage, in which two events were narrated through sequentially presented pictures. One day later, they read a series of sentences relating the same events but which included several inaccurate descriptions aimed at producing a misinformation effect. Finally, we measured the influence of the misinformation manipulation over false memory generation. After completing the misinformation task, participants responded to a questionnaire measuring pseudoscientific beliefs. Our results showed a positive correlation between pseudoscience endorsement and false memory rates, which indicates that the latter might be a key factor influencing susceptibility to pseudoscience. To our knowledge, this is the first study showing a link between the tendency to believe in pseudoscience and variability regarding proneness to develop false memories. Practical implications for the design of new interventions to effectively reduce pseudoscientific beliefs and their negative impact on our society are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current research examined the role of openness to information—and misinformation—in vaccine attitudes and COVID-19 vaccine status. Openness to information was examined in 2 ways: misinformation susceptibility, or the extent to which people endorse alternative health beliefs, pseudoscience, and conspiracy theories, and intellectual humility, or the extent to which people are open to information differing from their current beliefs. Results showed that antivaccination attitudes were related to a lower likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-19, Χ² (11, N = 107) = 43.78, p < .001, exp(B) = .72, 95% CI [0.53, 0.99]. Interestingly, endorsing pseudoscientific beliefs predicted a higher likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-19, Χ² (11, N = 107) = 43.78, p < .001, exp(B) = 1.30, 95% CI [1.05, 1.61]. Endorsing antivaccination attitudes was related to greater belief in alternative health beliefs, r(183) = .29, p < .001, pseudoscience, r(119) = .55, p < .001, and conspiracy theories (generic: r(182) = .73, p < .001; vaccine: r(180) = .88, p < .001). Participants with high intellectual humility were more likely to endorse generic and vaccine conspiracy beliefs, r(184) = .23, p < .001 and r(182) = .19, p = .01, respectively, but no more or less likely to endorse other misinformation beliefs. Intellectual humility was not related to COVID-19 vaccine status. More research is needed to clarify the relationships among misinformation susceptibility, intellectual humility, and vaccine attitudes and status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Karl Popper emphasized that to distinguish science from pseudoscience, a theoretical system must be falsified, not verified. This paper aims to show that management science research meets the empirical truth criteria Popper identified as the demarcation of science. The findings of this study show that Karl Popper's critical rationalism has limitations when applied to the field of management research. In addition, this article highlights the importance of Thomas Kuhn and Imre Lakatos' critique of Popper's rationalist approach in contributing to the development of management science. Although Popper's critical rationalism has been widely discussed in various papers, there is a research gap in how to integrate Popper's ideas along with the critiques of Kuhn and Lakatos, in particular, into management theory. This paper seeks to address this gap. The pragmatic truth of management theories used by management practitioners must also meet the criteria of empirical truth based on Popper's concept of rationalism, which also includes the critiques of Kuhn and Lakatos. The implications of this research suggest that the Lakatos thinking model approach is the most appropriate for the current state of management science, while also noting the relevant elements of Popper and Kuhn's theories and how these elements can be used to strengthen the Lakatos model approach. Management science with the Lakatos model approach can provide a stronger framework for evaluating management practices and theories, resulting in a more effective and scientifically grounded decision-making process in the field of management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In two preregistered online studies with U.S. adults, we provide evidence of a common psychological profile characterizing belief in prejudicial and non‐prejudicial epistemically unwarranted claims. We solicited self‐report ratings of beliefs in prejudicial and non‐prejudicial pseudoscientific, conspiratorial, and paranormal claims, as well as individual difference measures related to cognitive style, social dominance orientation (SDO), and trust in science. We found moderate to strong positive correlations between endorsing prejudicial and non‐prejudicial unwarranted claims, and robustly replicable associations between endorsement of all the assessed varieties of epistemically unwarranted beliefs, SDO, and perceptions of the credibility of science. Our findings suggest that individuals who endorse epistemically unwarranted beliefs are not only characterized by a rejection of epistemic authority (e.g., science), but also by preferences for a rigid, inequitably stratified society. This suggests that successfully challenging epistemically unwarranted beliefs may benefit by incorporating explicit challenges to social dominance motivations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gatekeeping, or determining membership of your group, is crucial to science: the moniker 'scientific' is a stamp of epistemic quality or even authority. But gatekeeping in science is fraught with dangers. Gatekeepers must exclude bad science, science fraud and pseudoscience, while including the disagreeing viewpoints on which science thrives. This is a difficult tightrope, not least because gatekeeping is a human matter and can be influenced by biases such as groupthink. After spelling out these general tensions around gatekeeping in science, we shed light on them with a case study from psychology. This concerns whether academic psychologists rightly or wrongly classify the applied-psychology framework of NLP ('neuro-linguistic programming') as unscientific and even pseudoscientific. This example of gatekeeping is particularly instructive because both the NLP community and the psychology community, we argue, make legitimate but also illegitimate moves. This case gives rise to several general insights about gatekeeping in science more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Análisis Filosófico is the property of Sociedad Argentina de Analisis Filosofico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Complementary healthcare in the United Kingdom is subject to voluntary, publicly funded regulation. Many such practices include pseudoscience. There are concerns that regulated practitioners make misleading health claims. This study used an artificial intelligence (AI) tool to measure the prevalence of such claims. Websites operated by practitioners of pseudoscientific complementary and alternative medicine, registered with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council, were downloaded and assessed by the AI, which determined whether a website was relevant to the investigation and, if so, identified health-related claims that it judged as false or misleading, supplying a rationale. Of 6096 registrants, 1326 met the selection criteria, of which 872 clinics had 725 relevant and operational websites. The AI assessed text from 11 771 web pages, identifying false or misleading claims in 704 (97%) of the websites. The AI’s performance was quality-assured by four human assessors, who manually reviewed 23 relevant web pages. Humans identified on average 39.5 claims likely to be judged false or misleading by advertising regulators, the AI identified 36. Humans misidentified an average of 4.8 claims, AI misidentified two. Most practitioners of pseudoscientific therapies registered with the Complementary and Natural Healthcare Council make misleading health claims online. AI could support regulator efficiency.

Creer en la palabra de las niñas y los niños víctimas de abuso sexual infantil es fundamental para su recuperación física y psicológica; las niñas y los niños no mienten frente a las situaciones de abuso que han vivido o que han experimentado. La alienación parental es lesiva para la salud mental de las niñas, los niños y sus madres y para los procesos judiciales donde intervienen como víctimas los primeros y como figuras protectoras, las segundas. La alienación parental no es válida científicamente, hace parte de la pseudociencia y de la llamada “ciencia basura”, que engaña y pretende ser real. La evaluación del Síndrome de Alienación Parental no cuenta con sustentos científicos y su diagnóstico solo busca liberar abusadores sexuales poniendo en duda y no creyendo en la palabra de las víctimas.

The multi-billion-dollar university rankings industry purports to offer insights into the quality of institutions, but the extent to which it does so has consistently been refuted. Critics argue that problematic proxies, composite indexing, homogenising effects, and several other issues make them both unscientific and neo-colonial. This article outlines these criticisms and argues that if we are to understand the resilience of rankings, we need to acknowledge the context in which they have become ubiquitous. This article offers the prevalence of university rankings as an example of neoliberalism’s conditioning effects on the sector. It is not enough to demonstrate the problematic nature of rankings; we must also ask the question: what must universities be like for them to support rankings despite repeated evidence of their problematic nature? Answering this question should help us engage with the hold that rankings have over us, and it should also help us to imagine the university we want and need. Contribution: This article brings together literature on neoliberalism in the academy with that on university rankings. It argues that we can only understand the hold that the international rankings industry has by seeing the alignment between the rankings’ methodologies and aims on the one hand and the incursion of a neoliberal ideology across the higher education sector on the other.

The article focuses on breaking through the noise of the wellness industry by emphasizing the importance of legitimacy and evidence-based practices in integrative health. It discusses the challenges posed by the commodification of wellness, which often exploits consumers through misleading information and "miracle cures" promoted by celebrities and influencers.

This article looks at academic deviation practices from the viewpoint of graduate students, as well as whether or not they find certain types of deviant behavior in science and education acceptable. The theoretical framework consisted of two mutually exclusive approaches to the interpretation of academic deviations: the normativist R. Descartes and the epistemic anarchism of P. Feyerabend. The study purpose is to evaluate graduate students in socio-humanitarian scientific specializations regarding the prevalence and attitude toward academic deviation. Main hypothesis: postgraduate students’ views regarding academic deviations, especially plagiarism, fall on a continuum, ranging from total denial to total acceptance. Research design: quantitativequalitative. Empirical base: online survey (1276 respondents, including 185 graduate students), 5 focus groups. Methods of analysis: cluster analysis using the k-nearest neighbors method, qualitative analysis of focus group materials. Main results. It was discovered that creating crib sheets was the most prevalent form of academic deviation among graduate students. Of the respondents, 66% selected “often” and “very often” as their options. The purchase of exams, abstracts, and coursework showed the least amount of variation. Ten percent of those surveyed said that graduate students used plagiarism frequently or extremely frequently. Based on their attitudes regarding plagiarism, five distinct groups could be identified using cluster analysis, three of which would be more tolerant of it. Simultaneously, two of the five groups place the blame on students, and three see plagiarism as a result of the educational system’s failure to some extent. Directions for further research are related to the analysis of other forms of deviation, for example, practices of academic collusion within a university, as well as a description of the objective reasons for graduate students committing academic deviations, consideration of the prevalence of academic deviations of graduate students as a sign of a crisis in the normative foundations of the institution of graduate school.

Despite decades of research and thousands of peer-reviewed articles on nonverbal communication written by a worldwide community of academics, a number of people in position of power, including security, justice and legal practitioners have embraced "body language" pseudoscience. This autoethnography aims to offer an otherwise inaccessible glimpse of the process a person can go through when turning to and away from pseudoscience. To achieve this objective, I describe and reflect upon the main events that, as a young lawyer, influenced my transition from body language pseudoscience to scientific research. To shed additional lights on these events, I turn to the cyberbullying and intimidation attempts that followed my journey and my decision to speak publicly. This autoethnography ends with a call for scholarly institutions to adequately protect researchers, including graduate students, from cyberbullying and intimidation attempts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article explores the concept of post-truth and its impact on politics, society, and various areas of life. Post-truth is defined as a political style that prioritizes emotions and opinions over facts. This trend has extended beyond politics and has influenced culture, philosophy, science, law, literature, and the media. The article argues that a return to truth is necessary to restore autonomy, subjectivity, and a commitment to public life. It also emphasizes the importance of ethics and responsibility in combating the post-truth era. [Extracted from the article]

That Loch Ness Monsters, "Nessies", might exist has been argued by many people on the basis of films, sonar contacts, photos, and eyewitness accounts. At the same time, some observers have insisted that these are not real creatures, nothing but misperceptions of natural phenomena or known animals. Their arguments typically address the weakest evidence (eyewitness accounts) rather than the strongest objective evidence of sonar and film. Such evasion or avoidance constitutes a strategy of misdirection, as does the insistence that, since Nessies are not recognized by "science," therefore taking their possible existence seriously amounts to doing pseudo-science. Debunkers are arguably irrational and go beyond the evidence in declaring that Nessies are definitely non-existent. Although Nessie fans do believe that they exist, most will admit that final proof requires a specimen or detailed close-up of unequivocally valid photography and insist only that enough evidence exists to warrant further searches: that is not pseudo-science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of the experimental study was to verify the reduction of Covid‐19 unfounded beliefs through arguments in favor of vaccination. The sample includes 720 participants recruited by Qualtrics (50% women, age: M = 38.8, SD = 10.90). The participants were equally and randomly divided into three groups. The control group was given the task of reading a neutral text about Norway. The first experimental group was provided with a debunking text that corrected popular misinformation and unfounded beliefs about vaccination against polio and vaccination against Covid‐19. The second experimental group read the same text as the first, with two additional paragraphs addressing the motives and errors in the thinking of unfounded belief spreaders. The results confirmed that exposing the participants to arguments for vaccination reduces the endorsement of Covid‐19 unfounded beliefs and increases the willingness to be vaccinated against Covid‐19 disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article provides an overview of pseudoscience, which refers to claims presented as scientific but lacking scientific evidence. It acknowledges that scientific knowledge is fallible and subject to change. The article explores the distinction between pseudoscience and other non-scientific areas of knowledge, and whether intentional deception is necessary for pseudoscience. It proposes a definition of pseudoscience based on subject matter, reliability, and presentation. The importance of consulting qualified experts to assess claims is emphasized, as well as the need for specialized scientific expertise in distinguishing between science and pseudoscience. The article also discusses the political implications of labeling doctrines as pseudoscience and the importance of refuting false claims. Additionally, the article provides a list of academic articles covering topics related to lexicon, philosophy of science, and the history and philosophy of scientific studies, which may be useful for library patrons conducting research in these areas. [Extracted from the article]

I examine the political significance of pseudoscience in contemporary Russia. Pseudoscience consists of theories and beliefs that pretend to be scientific but are not supported by evidence gathered and analyzed by appropriate methods. I argue that there is a mutually constitutive relationship between state authorities and some members of the pseudoscientific community in Russia. The former use pseudoscience in support of their ideological needs and propaganda efforts, while the latter utilize anti-Western rhetoric to increase their popularity and achieve official recognition. To support this claim, I describe key examples of mobilized pseudoscience and analyze their impact on the Russian narrative regarding the development of biological weapons near Russia's borders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this systematic literature review was to explore the current critiques and criticisms of positive psychology and to provide a consolidated view of the main challenges facing the third wave of research. The review identified 32 records that posed 117 unique criticisms and critiques of various areas of the discipline. These could be grouped into 21 categories through conventional content analysis, culminating in six overarching themes or 'broad criticisms/critiques'. The findings suggested that positive psychology (a) lacked proper theorizing and conceptual thinking, (b) was problematic as far as measurement and methodologies were concerned, (c) was seen as a pseudoscience that lacked evidence and had poor replication, (d) lacked novelty and self-isolated itself from mainstream psychology, (e) was a decontextualized neoliberalist ideology that caused harm, and (f) was a capitalistic venture. We briefly reflect on the findings and highlight the opportunities these criticisms and critiques present. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the predictors of belief in the efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and its use, including cognitive factors (scientific reasoning, health literacy, locus of control), beliefs (holistic and magical health beliefs pseudoscientific beliefs, and trust in doctors), sociodemographic factors, and cancer diagnosis. The sample consisted of 177 women (41.8% with a cancer diagnosis; Mage = 38.81, SD = 11.43). Beliefs in efficacy and use of CAM were the main outcome measures; preference for CAM over conventional treatment was a secondary outcome measure. Pseudoscientific/magical beliefs and external locus of control were the strongest predictors of positive attitudes toward CAM and its higher use, as well as preference for CAM instead of conventional treatment. Cancer diagnosis predicted only higher CAM use, but not more positive attitudes to CAM, nor preference for CAM instead of conventional medicine. Women with cancer had significantly more pseudoscientific beliefs than women without cancer and had a higher external locus of control over their health. Women with pseudoscientific/magical beliefs favor CAM treatments independently of the cancer diagnosis, although the diagnosis of cancer also contributes to their higher use of CAM. In other words, it seems improbable that women would turn toward CAM treatment only after being diagnosed with cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific reasoning and trust in science are two facets of science understanding. This paper examines the contribution of science understanding, over and above analytic thinking, to the endorsement of conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs about COVID-19 and behavioral intentions to engage in the recommended preventive behavior. We examined the direct and indirect effects of science understanding on normative health behavior in a representative sample of the Slovak population (N = 1024). The results showed more support for the indirect pathway: individuals with a better understanding of science generally had fewer epistemically suspect beliefs and as a consequence tended to behave more in line with the evidence-based guidelines and get vaccinated. Neither scientific reasoning nor trust in science directly predicted non-compliance with preventive measures, but analytic thinking correlated positively with non-compliance with preventive measures. The strongest predictor of epistemically suspect beliefs was trust in science, which also directly predicted the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Therefore, reasoning about which experts or sources to believe (second-order scientific reasoning) has become more important than directly evaluating the original evidence (first-order scientific reasoning). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnologia y Sociedad is the property of Centro de Estudios sobre Ciencia, Desarrollo y Educacion Superior and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Evolutionary theory is foundational to the life sciences because it unifies complex ecological principles and explains variation observed between and within species. Students at the secondary level often lack deep conceptual understanding of evolutionary theory, which is crucial to grasp topics related to primary drivers within populations such as inter- and intra-specific competition, predation, and reproductive success. Nonetheless, evolution remains a contentious topic in the United States. The prevalence of pseudoscientific belief among the U.S. populace warrants a calculated approach to deconstructing student misconceptions. This article puts forth an action-research-supported instructional strategy through which educators can identify and address core student misconceptions regarding evolutionary theory and other complex scientific phenomena, utilizing real-world and student-generated models to drive instruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Integrative bioethics is a predominantly Croatian school of thought whose proponents claim to have initiated an innovative and recognizably European concept of bioethics capable of dealing with the most pressing issues of our time. In this paper, a critical overview of the integrative bioethics project is undertaken to show that it is, in fact, a poorly articulated and arguably pseudoscientific enterprise fundamentally incapable of dealing with practical challenges. The first section provides the basic outline of integrative bioethics: its historical development, major proponents, geographical context and philosophical foundations. The second section considers its main theoretical shortcomings: the absence of normativity, collapse into ethical relativism and frequent intratheoretical inconsistencies. The third section addresses the issue of typically pseudoscientific features of integrative bioethics: verbose language, constant self- glorification and isolation from mainstream science. The fourth and concluding section of the paper argues that integrative bioethics––regarding its quality, reception and identity––does not merit the “European bioethics” label and is better described as a blind alley of European bioethics.

The relevance of research into the criteria of scientificity becomes more acute with each new stage in the development of science, and such a situation has accompanied science since the time when it acquired the status of the epicenter of New European culture. The aim of science at obtaining reliable knowledge, possessing universality and general significance, applicable to all spheres of human life (as emphasized by V.I. Vernadsky), becomes attractive for all those who would like to speak on behalf of science, without having any grounds for it. The aim of the article is to show the complexity of the process of formation of criteria of scientificity at the main stages of development of European science, as well as the search for a general scientific criterion of scientificity within the philosophy of science. Taking into account the dominant tendency of modern philosophy of science – turning to the history of science, the author conducts a comparative analysis of the criteria of scientificity developed in Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Modern Age. This method of research is supplemented by an appeal to internal and external factors affecting both the formation of criteria of scientificity and their substitution by pseudoscientific ideas and constructions. As a result of the conducted research, we come to the following conclusions possessing novelty. Firstly, the criterion of scientificity has a historical and systemic character, so it would be more accurate to speak about the criteria of scientificity. Secondly, the only feature that unites the historical forms of criteria of scientificity is the peculiarities of scientific attitude to the world. And, thirdly, the possibility of violating the criteria of scientificity is inherent in the relative nature of scientific knowledge, but this possibility becomes a reality under certain socio-political circumstances. The practical significance of the conducted research is seen in the fact that it creates a methodological basis for assessing the scientificity/ pseudo-scientificity of hypothetical constructions in cases of controversial situations for the scientific community.

Nanotechnology is the pinnacle of high technology, increasingly coveted by non-scientist buyers seeking science fiction rather than fact. This B2B ethnography deepens our understanding of scientist sellers rejecting orthodox technical sales talk, in order to guide culturally distant non-scientist buyers into more similar sense via religious pseudoscience (scientism). Although heretical, scientism is a powerful proselytising tool, enabling (pseudo)scientist sellers to reimagine themselves as powerful 'priests', while obligating buyers to have faith in their teachings, or face excommunication from the 'church' of nanotechnology. Within this sales-based 'theocracy', the metaphoric methodological 'God' Science is the ultimate form of validation, duplicitously manipulated, and overtly drawn on to facilitate the diffusion of poorly understood 'salvific' innovations, while supporting an apocryphal religion for high-technology sales. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We critically analyze the idea of a flat Earth and discuss what leads people to believe in it and the convenience of debate it. In a flat Earth, the explanations of day-night and the seasons of the year, are neither falsifiable nor compatible with each other; moreover, since those explanations lack predictive power, the flat Earth is not a valid scientific model. A combination of unconsciousness of their own ignorance, conspiracy mentality and need for belonging, may influence a person to the point of believing that the Earth is flat. For maximizing the outcome on the audiences in favor of evidence-based critical thinking, we suggest that the argumentative flaws of science deniers must be publicly exposed using technical refutation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Phrenology is the pseudoscience in which practitioners claim that they can discern one's character and personality traits by studying the structure of the skull. Long before "head bumps" were viewed as determinants of character, skin lines were analyzed to provide similar information and to divine one's future. Palmistry, also called chiromancy, is the interpretation of the lines of the palms and is one of the oldest forms of divination. A similar pseudoscience, metoposcopy, suggests that facial lines and marks, mainly forehead lines, can reveal one's personality and foretell events in one's future. Metoposcopy was first practiced by the ancient Chinese and was popularized during the Renaissance by Girolamo Cardano and later by Richard Saunders. Metoposcopy is a largely forgotten form of skin-based pseudoscience that is no longer practiced today, unlike palmistry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Artificial intelligence (AI) conversational generative chatbots have drawn the attention of academics and have been increasingly used in the scientific research process since the inauguration of ChatGPT in November 2022. Despite growing research on AI chatbots' usage in research and publication, limited studies have deeply addressed the ethical concerns that arise from their usage. This research explores the perceptions of academics and their leaders regarding the use of AI chatbots in research and publication. It addresses the ethical dilemma and ethical approaches considered by academics and their leaders for shaping their decisions for the use or non-use of chatbots in scientific research. For these purposes, in-depth interviews were conducted with 21 academics/researchers and 11 leaders of scientific research in public universities in Saudi Arabia. The results of the thematic analysis confirmed that AI chatbots are extensively used in scientific research, albeit many researchers present their publications as their own work with no acknowledgement of the support from chatbots. The results showed ten interrelated ethical concerns, which would impact the growth of pseudoscience in developing countries if these concerns were not overcome. Hence, strategies for mitigating these ethical concerns are suggested. The research showed that academics often use chatbots based on a "utilitarian" approach, whereas most leaders consider the "virtue" or the "common good" approach for their concerns about chatbot adoption in scientific research. This research calls for policy and interventions from policymakers and other stakeholders about the responsible and ethical use of chatbots in research and publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The causality bias, or causal illusion, occurs when people believe that there is a causal relationship between events that are actually uncorrelated. This bias is associated with many problems in everyday life, including pseudoscience, stereotypes, prejudices, and ideological extremism. Some evidence-based educational interventions have been developed to reduce causal illusions. To the best of our knowledge, these interventions have included a bias induction phase prior to the training phase, but the role of this bias induction phase has not yet been investigated. The aim of the present research was to examine it. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups (induction + training, training, and control, as a function of the phases they received before assessment). We evaluated their causal illusion using a standard contingency judgment task. In a null contingency scenario, the causal illusion was reduced in the training and induction-training groups as compared to the control group, suggesting that the intervention was effective regardless of whether or not the induction phase was included. In addition, in a positive contingency scenario, the induction + training group generated lower causal judgments than the control group, indicating that sometimes the induction phase may produce an increase in general skepticism. The raw data of this experiment are available at the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/k9nes/ [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Center for Countering Digital Hate in 2021 identified Rashid Buttar, Joseph Mercola, and Ben Tapper as members of the "Disinformation Dozen," responsible for pseudoscientific social media content and vocal advocates against the COVID-19 vaccines. Despite regulatory efforts to de-platform them, these influential entrepreneurs (two osteopathic physicians and a chiropractor) persist. Analyzing their messages, this essay demonstrates how anti-vaccination arguments in the wake of the pandemic align pseudoscience and masculinity using the logic of secrecy and revelation. This contrasts significantly with pre-pandemic arguments against vaccines, notably childhood immunizations such as the MMR and MMRV, which drew on feminized discourses of maternal instinct. The insights of our essay inform two areas of inquiry, primarily: the study of anti-vaccination advocacy, specifically its gendered assumptions and warrants; and the study of contemporary rhetorics of secrecy, specifically the political alignments of pseudoscience and gendered public aggression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]