DOI: https://doi.org/10.7203/metode.8.10003

How to be a critical but reasonable debater: Suggestions for critically addressing pseudoscientists and other similar groups


Abstract


Discourse about pseudoscience usually accompanies dialogue about science. Despite attempts to separate the two domains, people still rely on pseudoscientific remedies. The ease with which beliefs become contagious, the popularity of certain products, and the verbiage of their sellers often leave us in the hands of so-called experts. Although the scientific method can help us to prove the ineffectiveness of certain remedies, we do not always have conclusive arguments to dispel doubts, and so we are left at the mercy of supposed technical knowledge or false scientific rigour. Faced with this, we must resort to critical thinking to respond to alleged experts and conduct ourselves reasonably.


Keywords


critical thinking; argumentation; scientific method; scientific discourse vs. pseudoscientific discourse; authority

Full Text:

PDF

References


  1. Alcolea, J. (2011). Discusión crítica. In L. Vega, & P. Olmos (Eds.), Compendio de lógica, argumentación y retórica (pp. 210–212). Madrid: Trotta.

  2. Alcolea, J. (2015). Del uso de la lógica en la argumentación (crítica). In J. Díez et al., (Eds.), Actas del VIII Congreso de la Sociedad de Lógica, Metodología y Filosofía de la Ciencia en España, Barcelona 7-10 de julio 2015 (pp. 418–422). Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.

  3. Bernard, C. (2005). Introducción al estudio de la medicina experimental. Barcelona: Crítica. (Original work published in 1865).

  4. Blackburn, S. (2001). Pensar: Una incitación a la filosofía. Barcelona: Paidós.

  5. Pigliucci, M. (2010). Nonsense on stilts: How to tell science from bunk. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  6. Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.) (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience. Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  7. Popper, K. R. (2007). Conocimiento objetivo. Un enfoque evolucionista (C. Solís, Trad.). Madrid: Tecnos. (Original work published in 1974).

  8. Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  9. Walton, D. N. (1997). Appeal to expert opinion. Arguments from authority. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press.

  10. Walton, D. N. (1999). Appeal to popular opinion. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State University Press.

  11. Walton, D. N. (2010). Why fallacies appear to be better arguments than they are. Informal logic, 30(2), 159–184. Retrieved from https://search.
    proquest.com/docview/1881505091?accountid=14777

  12. Walton, D. N., Reed, C., & Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation schemes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.







Creative Commons License
Texts in the journal are –unless otherwise indicated– published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________