What do you think?
Rate this book
The Scientific Attitude: Defending Science from Denial, Fraud, and Pseudoscience
An argument that what makes science distinctive is its emphasis on evidence and scientists' willingness to change theories on the basis of new evidence. Attacks on science have become commonplace. Claims that climate change isn't settled science, that evolution is “only a theory,” and that scientists are conspiring to keep the truth about vaccines from the public are staples of some politicians' rhetorical repertoire. Defenders of science often point to its discoveries (penicillin! relativity!) without explaining exactly why scientific claims are superior. In this book, Lee McIntyre argues that what distinguishes science from its rivals is what he calls “the scientific attitude”—caring about evidence and being willing to change theories on the basis of new evidence. The history of science is littered with theories that were scientific but turned out to be wrong; the scientific attitude reveals why even a failed theory can help us to understand what is special about science. McIntyre offers examples that illustrate both scientific success (a reduction in childbed fever in the nineteenth century) and failure (the flawed “discovery” of cold fusion in the twentieth century). He describes the transformation of medicine from a practice based largely on hunches into a science based on evidence; considers scientific fraud; examines the positions of ideology-driven denialists, pseudoscientists, and “skeptics” who reject scientific findings; and argues that social science, no less than natural science, should embrace the scientific attitude. McIntyre argues that the scientific attitude—the grounding of science in evidence—offers a uniquely powerful tool in the defense of science.
277 pages, Hardcover
Published January 1, 2019
79 people are currently reading
905 people want to read
About the author
Lee McIntyre
16 books203 followersI am a philosopher and my goal is to write books that engage our minds and connect with issues that we all care about. In my non-fiction, I am particularly interested in defending science against all forms of science denial and post-truth. In my fiction, I seek to raise moral questions that push us to the limit of what we would do to protect the people we love. It gets me excited when I reach an audience who may never have thought they would like philosophy, but it speaks to them. These days I still do some philosophical scholarship--and I teach ethics--but most days I can be found at my desk writing, with two big German Shepherds snoring at my feet.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews
April 24, 2019
Like many with a science background, I generally struggle to take philosophy of science seriously - it can too inward-looking and generally more fond of using impenetrably big words than having any true meaning. However, Lee McIntyre manages to make his take on the scientific method and the demarcation between science and either non-science or pseudoscience (we'll come back to that split) genuinely interesting.
Most of us come across the idea of the scientific method - the approach taken by scientists that gives science that 'special sauce' that makes it so good at doing what it does. Rather like the way that some physicists like to say that time doesn’t exist (until it’s dinner time), philosophers of science like to say the scientific method doesn’t exist - but then can’t help but acting as if it does. I think this is because they (and many scientists) want 'the scientific method ‘ to be a step-by-step series of rules, but Lee McIntyre makes it clear it’s something more like ‘Empirical evidence is key, and if evidence contradicts our theory then we change the theory.’ He calls this the 'scientific attitude' - but for me that's splitting hairs (I suppose that's what philosophers are for): it is a particular kind of method, based on principles rather than rules.
For the non-philosopher, McIntyre spends an inordinately long time trying to pin down whether this approach should be a necessary, sufficient or necessary and sufficient way of demarcating science from either non-science or pseudoscience. The distinction between the two of these opposing categories is whether we are merely trying to distinguish science from 'fake science' (e.g. climate change denial or intelligent design) or from legitimate disciplines which are not and never will be science, such as literature or music. Deciding demarcation is perhaps more interesting to insiders - the rest of us really just want to stop the pseudo-scientists and to get the 'soft sciences' onto a better scientific basis (give them more of a scientific attitude, McIntyre might say).
This latter is a point the book addresses at some length, as social science areas such as psychology, anthropology, sociology and economics use the tools of science but do not yet always do so with a properly scientific attitude. McIntyre interestingly suggests that these fields could model themselves on medicine, which went from being pretty much a pseudoscience to a true science relatively recently.
There is a lot of good stuff here, but it could have been better. There is too much angels-on-a-pinhead worrying about demarcation, where we could have done with a lot more examples both from pseudoscience and the social sciences (I'd have liked to see some more detailed economics examples, for example). The coverage was too high level - it's the stories of specifics that engage us. Even so, as someone who generally struggles to take much philosophy of science seriously, this book interested me and helped me think a little more about what science is, how we should defend it against pseudoscience and how we should improve the near-science fields such as psychology and economics.
Most of us come across the idea of the scientific method - the approach taken by scientists that gives science that 'special sauce' that makes it so good at doing what it does. Rather like the way that some physicists like to say that time doesn’t exist (until it’s dinner time), philosophers of science like to say the scientific method doesn’t exist - but then can’t help but acting as if it does. I think this is because they (and many scientists) want 'the scientific method ‘ to be a step-by-step series of rules, but Lee McIntyre makes it clear it’s something more like ‘Empirical evidence is key, and if evidence contradicts our theory then we change the theory.’ He calls this the 'scientific attitude' - but for me that's splitting hairs (I suppose that's what philosophers are for): it is a particular kind of method, based on principles rather than rules.
For the non-philosopher, McIntyre spends an inordinately long time trying to pin down whether this approach should be a necessary, sufficient or necessary and sufficient way of demarcating science from either non-science or pseudoscience. The distinction between the two of these opposing categories is whether we are merely trying to distinguish science from 'fake science' (e.g. climate change denial or intelligent design) or from legitimate disciplines which are not and never will be science, such as literature or music. Deciding demarcation is perhaps more interesting to insiders - the rest of us really just want to stop the pseudo-scientists and to get the 'soft sciences' onto a better scientific basis (give them more of a scientific attitude, McIntyre might say).
This latter is a point the book addresses at some length, as social science areas such as psychology, anthropology, sociology and economics use the tools of science but do not yet always do so with a properly scientific attitude. McIntyre interestingly suggests that these fields could model themselves on medicine, which went from being pretty much a pseudoscience to a true science relatively recently.
There is a lot of good stuff here, but it could have been better. There is too much angels-on-a-pinhead worrying about demarcation, where we could have done with a lot more examples both from pseudoscience and the social sciences (I'd have liked to see some more detailed economics examples, for example). The coverage was too high level - it's the stories of specifics that engage us. Even so, as someone who generally struggles to take much philosophy of science seriously, this book interested me and helped me think a little more about what science is, how we should defend it against pseudoscience and how we should improve the near-science fields such as psychology and economics.
February 10, 2022
This was very interesting to read. I do think many parts were a bit unnecessarily long and I found him repeating himself a few times, but I understand also that he needed to do this to present it as a "popular science" book. Nevertheless, I think this should be a required reading for many people across disciplines and sciences. The road ahead is long and arduous. The challenges are immense and growing over time. However, the stakes have never been higher.
October 10, 2019
I thought this book would be more "pop philosophy", but it's a serious philosophical treatise on science. It would be great to take a class with the author, because I still have so many questions.
November 20, 2019
A good book explaining that the essence of science is using evidence to come to an understanding of things, and willing to change one's mind based on new evidence, with some interesting examples of when it has worked to correct misunderstandings and where people have sometimes gone wrong, though he shows in those cases how it is eventually corrected. I would have liked more examples, discussed in more detail, particularly in the chapter on pseudoscience, and it did not seem that he really was familiar with the views of many who hold to some of those views, lumping together a variety of groups as though they saw things the same way. For instance, he did not even mention those who agree that there is climate change but disagree as to whether it is cause by human activity. Since that chapter seems in some ways to be the main thrust of his book, I thought he could have given more explanations, instead of just saying it had been explained well elsewhere and referencing an endnote, especially as I don't know how easily available some of those resources are (though I intend to look for a few).
December 6, 2019
I had high hopes that this book would be engaging but after four chapters I gave up.
I found it via an article this author wrote for the New York Times about climate change deniers and flat earthers. In the article he described having a dialogue with these people and the strategies he used to advocate for science. I hoped this book would be more of the same, but it was not.
What I got instead was more like a book of philosophical logic. I can’t speak for the entire book but at least the first four chapters are heavy on theory with only a few anecdotes sprinkled in. I found some of the anecdotes interesting but very sparse and very little else to keep me engaged. There was hardly any mention of real world applications to his positions.
It’s dry, it’s very theoretical, and it drags on and on about points of logic I didn’t need proven to me. I would have enjoyed a book that chronicles his experiences with doubters of science much more. This is not that book.
I found it via an article this author wrote for the New York Times about climate change deniers and flat earthers. In the article he described having a dialogue with these people and the strategies he used to advocate for science. I hoped this book would be more of the same, but it was not.
What I got instead was more like a book of philosophical logic. I can’t speak for the entire book but at least the first four chapters are heavy on theory with only a few anecdotes sprinkled in. I found some of the anecdotes interesting but very sparse and very little else to keep me engaged. There was hardly any mention of real world applications to his positions.
It’s dry, it’s very theoretical, and it drags on and on about points of logic I didn’t need proven to me. I would have enjoyed a book that chronicles his experiences with doubters of science much more. This is not that book.
February 18, 2021
An important supplemental reading for any philosophy of science course. Lee McIntyre makes a compelling case for the scientific attitude (i.e., 1. valuing evidence and 2. being willing to change one's mind in the face of new evidence) as a way of distinguishing science from non-science, pseudoscience, and other nonsense. Importantly, the scientific attitude does not exclude legitimate fields of inquiry where falsification is not possible, or where certain rigorous methods are not possible, practical, or ethical (e.g., where manipulation of an independent variable puts people in harm's way). Highly recommended for scientists or for individuals interested in science, especially those concerned about pseudoscience or those in fields trying to gain legitimacy by adopting scientific approaches to bolster their inquiry.
September 19, 2021
This is the best book I have read this year, and I may boldly say it is in my top ten for all time. I wish it existed before I started my science degree years ago, when all I knew was that science is “good” but not really knowing why, or what makes it special and apart from other realms of human inquiry, from literature to pseudoscience. McIntyre’s insistence on a scientific attitude of the importance of evidence and, equally, the importance to reasonably change one’s mind in the face of compelling evidence is a bold and refreshing approach to frame science. It also acts as a wonderful counterpoint against denialism, pseudoscience, and conspiracy thinking, which do not have this attitude (despite what they claim). By eschewing long lists of necessary conditions for science and instead keeping it simple, it provides science-minded people with the ability to call out anti-scientific thinking with more to say than “That’s just not scientific.” This book provides tools to explain why.
This book is suitable for all readers, although if you have a grounding in basic formal logic and critical thinking it does go easier. Plus, if one has “done” science it will give you more to think about than perhaps otherwise. This book took me a long time to read despite its slim size because I spent time pausing over pages to recall incidents and engagements with science and pseudoscience that I have grappled with over my life. This is easily the most rigorous and well-written book about the nature of science I have ever read.
This book is suitable for all readers, although if you have a grounding in basic formal logic and critical thinking it does go easier. Plus, if one has “done” science it will give you more to think about than perhaps otherwise. This book took me a long time to read despite its slim size because I spent time pausing over pages to recall incidents and engagements with science and pseudoscience that I have grappled with over my life. This is easily the most rigorous and well-written book about the nature of science I have ever read.
July 16, 2019
Page 50: "It might shock those outside the philosophy of probability and statistics..." is a great example of why this book is so terrible. He might have meant that there are philosophies surrounding the use of statistics, and just be ignorant of English, or he might be so wrapped up in his own education that he thinks mathematics is a philosophy. Either way, his opinion doesn't matter.
People who study philosophy too often think everything is relative and that everything is as fuzzy as their arguments. People who spend their lives in a "publish or perish" environment also have an incentive to try to say something different, regardless of what the existing reality might show. It seems Mr. McIntyre suffers from both problems.
Science is real and even if the scientific method isn't exactly has he shows, it still exists. Logical people see something (either based directly on evidence or through intuition and theories growing out of questions about reality), then seek to test the concept in a way that is describable and replicable. Yes, there are far too many failures to implement that, but it doesn't change the concept or the general definition of what makes something a science.
I'm certainly glad this was a library book, as only an insignificant amount of my tax dollars went to it purchase rather than me having spent the full amount. Avoid it.
People who study philosophy too often think everything is relative and that everything is as fuzzy as their arguments. People who spend their lives in a "publish or perish" environment also have an incentive to try to say something different, regardless of what the existing reality might show. It seems Mr. McIntyre suffers from both problems.
Science is real and even if the scientific method isn't exactly has he shows, it still exists. Logical people see something (either based directly on evidence or through intuition and theories growing out of questions about reality), then seek to test the concept in a way that is describable and replicable. Yes, there are far too many failures to implement that, but it doesn't change the concept or the general definition of what makes something a science.
I'm certainly glad this was a library book, as only an insignificant amount of my tax dollars went to it purchase rather than me having spent the full amount. Avoid it.
October 13, 2021
I read the introduction on a kindle sample.
Then picked the book from a shelf and read the chapter on pseudoscience and "deniers".
The way the author classifies anthropogenic global warming skeptics as deniers and accepts at face value the 97% meme that has been proved flawed struck me. He did not even consider the serious scientists that accept the human influence on the climate but question whether its impact is predominant compared to natural causes and whether it is creating a climate emergency.
Instead he uses anecdotal caricatures such as Ted Cruz to avoid even considering the possibility of serious skeptics.
He basically calls the ones that are skeptic on AGW deniers without further explanation.
On the other hand he does not question the uncertainty of climate models or of event attribution. Nor the hysteria of activists and politics on the other side which use the tactics of pseudoscience.
Climate science is a politically charged minefield for theorists. This book failed the test of providing a sensible account on this field.
That the word "denier" is used in such a light-headed way in a philosophy of science book is a serious blow to its credibility.
Then picked the book from a shelf and read the chapter on pseudoscience and "deniers".
The way the author classifies anthropogenic global warming skeptics as deniers and accepts at face value the 97% meme that has been proved flawed struck me. He did not even consider the serious scientists that accept the human influence on the climate but question whether its impact is predominant compared to natural causes and whether it is creating a climate emergency.
Instead he uses anecdotal caricatures such as Ted Cruz to avoid even considering the possibility of serious skeptics.
He basically calls the ones that are skeptic on AGW deniers without further explanation.
On the other hand he does not question the uncertainty of climate models or of event attribution. Nor the hysteria of activists and politics on the other side which use the tactics of pseudoscience.
Climate science is a politically charged minefield for theorists. This book failed the test of providing a sensible account on this field.
That the word "denier" is used in such a light-headed way in a philosophy of science book is a serious blow to its credibility.
March 1, 2021
Excellent philosophy of science. A must read for laypersons interested in contemporary philosophy of science, I think.
January 8, 2024
我們多多少少都有聽過「自戀」這個名詞，也許你心中也有幾位自戀狂人選，來自你求學階段的親朋好友或是職場上的前輩後輩們，「自戀」這個詞彙在現今社群媒體蓬勃發展的推波助瀾下，大幅降低了它的重要性，大家多半也將自戀與虛榮劃上等號，也認為他們只是愛現、愛炫耀美好的事物。 時至今日，有在社��媒體分享過自拍照的人說不定都被歸納在「自戀狂」的範疇裡。現今，我們形容一個人是「自戀者」，變成一件十分平常的事，這導致我們不再去思索它真正的含義。
本書中主要提到的「自戀者」，不同於我們一般所認為的那些自戀狂，而是那些極端自戀者。他們並���達到自戀型人格疾患(NPD)的標準，也不像一般所見的那種自我感覺良好的人，因為他們不只喜歡炫耀和誇大自己，還會對周圍的人產生”危險”。
作者在本書總共介紹了8種類型的極端自戀者，透過每一位個案觀察與分析，我們可以從身邊辨識出誰屬於極端型自戀者，也能知道造成他們如此自戀的原因和動力為何，最後學會對應這些人的方法。
自戀其實是一種人類心理的普遍面向，人多少都會有自戀的行為，差別只是在程度的多寡而已。 美國精神醫學學會為「自戀型人格違常」明定了九項的標準，從心理學觀點來看，這九項標準可以簡化成兩項：
🟡膨脹的自我重要感
🟡對他人缺乏同理心
書中所介紹的各種類型的自戀者，都離不開這兩項核心特質。他們都試圖讓自己產生良好的感覺，來證明自己是有價值的人，但他們帶有情緒的作為，卻會對身旁的人造成傷害。 也許你我身邊都有這樣的人才存在，只是你不曉得原來這樣的人是自戀狂。
要如何對應身邊的極端自戀者？
看完本書的所有案例，可以發現那些極端自戀的人，都有不愉快的童年經驗，包括遭到父母遺棄、受到虐待、情感被忽視等等，他們並非天生如此，而是被後天的創傷形塑而成。 因此，遇到極端自戀者，必須要記住「羞恥感」這個問題，他們不停地建立和防衛他們的自我感覺，目的就是擺脫無意識的羞恥感。 若碰到不可理喻的極端自戀者時，其中一個解決方法就是，同情他，然後別想與他一較高下。 這聽起來像在安慰自己並且有點可笑，但藉由憐憫他們，可以讓你避免持續與他爭鋒相對，這只會沒完沒了，尤其是「自以為是型自戀者」(pic7)，事實和真相正確與否對他們而言根本不重要，在他們的世界裡，只有自己是贏家。 所以在面對這類型的自戀者，我們只能大器一點，做你認為對彼此都好的選擇。
我們每個人都有可能是自戀者？
身處在流量變現的時代，我們或多或少都有點自戀（自我感覺良好）的傾向，分清楚健康的自戀（自愛）與病態自戀的差別在哪，或許會發現我們與那些極端自戀者，也有些相似的地方。
本書中主要提到的「自戀者」，不同於我們一般所認為的那些自戀狂，而是那些極端自戀者。他們並���達到自戀型人格疾患(NPD)的標準，也不像一般所見的那種自我感覺良好的人，因為他們不只喜歡炫耀和誇大自己，還會對周圍的人產生”危險”。
作者在本書總共介紹了8種類型的極端自戀者，透過每一位個案觀察與分析，我們可以從身邊辨識出誰屬於極端型自戀者，也能知道造成他們如此自戀的原因和動力為何，最後學會對應這些人的方法。
自戀其實是一種人類心理的普遍面向，人多少都會有自戀的行為，差別只是在程度的多寡而已。 美國精神醫學學會為「自戀型人格違常」明定了九項的標準，從心理學觀點來看，這九項標準可以簡化成兩項：
🟡膨脹的自我重要感
🟡對他人缺乏同理心
書中所介紹的各種類型的自戀者，都離不開這兩項核心特質。他們都試圖讓自己產生良好的感覺，來證明自己是有價值的人，但他們帶有情緒的作為，卻會對身旁的人造成傷害。 也許你我身邊都有這樣的人才存在，只是你不曉得原來這樣的人是自戀狂。
要如何對應身邊的極端自戀者？
看完本書的所有案例，可以發現那些極端自戀的人，都有不愉快的童年經驗，包括遭到父母遺棄、受到虐待、情感被忽視等等，他們並非天生如此，而是被後天的創傷形塑而成。 因此，遇到極端自戀者，必須要記住「羞恥感」這個問題，他們不停地建立和防衛他們的自我感覺，目的就是擺脫無意識的羞恥感。 若碰到不可理喻的極端自戀者時，其中一個解決方法就是，同情他，然後別想與他一較高下。 這聽起來像在安慰自己並且有點可笑，但藉由憐憫他們，可以讓你避免持續與他爭鋒相對，這只會沒完沒了，尤其是「自以為是型自戀者」(pic7)，事實和真相正確與否對他們而言根本不重要，在他們的世界裡，只有自己是贏家。 所以在面對這類型的自戀者，我們只能大器一點，做你認為對彼此都好的選擇。
我們每個人都有可能是自戀者？
身處在流量變現的時代，我們或多或少都有點自戀（自我感覺良好）的傾向，分清楚健康的自戀（自愛）與病態自戀的差別在哪，或許會發現我們與那些極端自戀者，也有些相似的地方。
March 3, 2025
3rd read:
I’ve been dealing with a bunch of people recently who don’t care about facts or data, and when that happens, I re-read this phenomenal book from Lee McIntyre. This was my third read, and it just helps me feel less insane. Lee’s a philosopher of science and argues that there’s a certain attitude we should have when doing science or evaluating the information we’re receiving. It’s a must-read, and I need to have my son read it at some point.
2nd read:
I’ve been thinking a lot about science deniers lately as well as those who don’t understand the difference between good vs bad science. I even have to keep myself in check at times because just like everyone else, I succumb to biases and become less skeptical of studies that agree with what I already believe. This is why I decided to give this book from Lee McIntyre another read, and it’s just as great as the first time. Lee is a philosopher of science and argues that science isn’t so much about the scientific method, but it’s about having a specific attitude. The primary aspect of the scientific attitude is that we update our beliefs based on new evidence. And throughout the book, he discusses difference branches of science such as the social sciences and how we can deal with some of the replication crisis by acknowledging a scientific attitude. Best of all, he explains why pseudoscience’s lack of the scientific attitude and falsification is why it’s not and shouldn’t be accepted. This is a great book that everyone should read multiple times.
1st read:
Before picking up this book, I had never even heard of the philosophy of science, but that’s exactly what Lee McIntyre does. I can’t even express how important I think it is that all of us (yes, even us non-scientists) know how to separate good vs. bad science. We saw crazy conspiracies and whacky theories during the COVID pandemic and anyone with a lab coat was trying to speak as an authority. Social media has made it easier for people to push their pseudoscientific remedies to people looking for some type of physical or psychological relief. And worst of all, we have Big Pharma pushing all sorts of medications on us, and as a recovering prescription drug addict, this is a topic that I care about deeply. All of this seems like it’s too much too grasp and dissect, but Lee McIntyre brings it all down to one simple philosophy, and that’s the scientific attitude.
In this book, Lee presents one of the most nuanced conversations about scientific research that I’ve ever read. He lays out his thesis that scientists and researchers from all fields must adopt a simply scientific attitude, which will help science do what it does better, which is to get us closer to the truth. The scientific attitude discusses the importance of being aware of your own possible biases and why scrutiny through peer review is so important.
What I thought was really cool about Lee and his own way of thinking and analyzing issues is that he gives people the benefit of the doubt. When discussing scientific fraud, he helps the reader realize that scientists are human, and sometimes they make mistakes just like the rest of us. He also recognizes that some people may be critical of his view of what the scientific attitude is because some people are gatekeepers and make really strict boundaries for what is or isn’t science. At the end of the day, Lee wants us to keep progressing and making discoveries about all aspects of life and the universe, and this means being ethical, skeptical, and humble in order to achieve this by using the scientific attitude.
So, even though you’re probably like me and aren’t a scientist, everyone should read this book because we can all benefit from the scientific attitude.
I’ve been dealing with a bunch of people recently who don’t care about facts or data, and when that happens, I re-read this phenomenal book from Lee McIntyre. This was my third read, and it just helps me feel less insane. Lee’s a philosopher of science and argues that there’s a certain attitude we should have when doing science or evaluating the information we’re receiving. It’s a must-read, and I need to have my son read it at some point.
2nd read:
I’ve been thinking a lot about science deniers lately as well as those who don’t understand the difference between good vs bad science. I even have to keep myself in check at times because just like everyone else, I succumb to biases and become less skeptical of studies that agree with what I already believe. This is why I decided to give this book from Lee McIntyre another read, and it’s just as great as the first time. Lee is a philosopher of science and argues that science isn’t so much about the scientific method, but it’s about having a specific attitude. The primary aspect of the scientific attitude is that we update our beliefs based on new evidence. And throughout the book, he discusses difference branches of science such as the social sciences and how we can deal with some of the replication crisis by acknowledging a scientific attitude. Best of all, he explains why pseudoscience’s lack of the scientific attitude and falsification is why it’s not and shouldn’t be accepted. This is a great book that everyone should read multiple times.
1st read:
Before picking up this book, I had never even heard of the philosophy of science, but that’s exactly what Lee McIntyre does. I can’t even express how important I think it is that all of us (yes, even us non-scientists) know how to separate good vs. bad science. We saw crazy conspiracies and whacky theories during the COVID pandemic and anyone with a lab coat was trying to speak as an authority. Social media has made it easier for people to push their pseudoscientific remedies to people looking for some type of physical or psychological relief. And worst of all, we have Big Pharma pushing all sorts of medications on us, and as a recovering prescription drug addict, this is a topic that I care about deeply. All of this seems like it’s too much too grasp and dissect, but Lee McIntyre brings it all down to one simple philosophy, and that’s the scientific attitude.
In this book, Lee presents one of the most nuanced conversations about scientific research that I’ve ever read. He lays out his thesis that scientists and researchers from all fields must adopt a simply scientific attitude, which will help science do what it does better, which is to get us closer to the truth. The scientific attitude discusses the importance of being aware of your own possible biases and why scrutiny through peer review is so important.
What I thought was really cool about Lee and his own way of thinking and analyzing issues is that he gives people the benefit of the doubt. When discussing scientific fraud, he helps the reader realize that scientists are human, and sometimes they make mistakes just like the rest of us. He also recognizes that some people may be critical of his view of what the scientific attitude is because some people are gatekeepers and make really strict boundaries for what is or isn’t science. At the end of the day, Lee wants us to keep progressing and making discoveries about all aspects of life and the universe, and this means being ethical, skeptical, and humble in order to achieve this by using the scientific attitude.
So, even though you’re probably like me and aren’t a scientist, everyone should read this book because we can all benefit from the scientific attitude.
July 15, 2021
This book is about the philosophy of science and what it promotes is that we ought not focus so much on the scientific method when we try to make a distinction between science and non-science, or good authentic scientific inquery and pseudoscientific nonsense. What should matter for us instead, is the scientific attitude. Even if the scientific attitude is difficult to define and hard to measure, it still makes up the core difference between what is science and what is not.
Science is one of the few activities where we catch humanity at its best; despite any selfish motives or petty agendas, we can cut through all this by caring about the right things, critiquing one another’s work, and never forgetting the common goal toward which we all aim: to know something from nature (or from human experience) that we did not know before. science is the greatest invention the human mind has ever created for gathering empirical knowledge. As such, it is worth understanding, emulating, and defending.
science is about one’s attitude and not one’s method—about seeking justification rather than jumping to a conclusion about truth.
So we now understand why ideological theories like intelligent design and denialism about climate change should not be considered scientific, because they in some ways rely on the antithesis of the scientific attitude. They champion ideology over evidence. They have no humility over the fact that scientific investigation pushes us not toward certainty, but more likely toward abandoning some false idea that we desperately wanted to believe.
Science is one of the few activities where we catch humanity at its best; despite any selfish motives or petty agendas, we can cut through all this by caring about the right things, critiquing one another’s work, and never forgetting the common goal toward which we all aim: to know something from nature (or from human experience) that we did not know before. science is the greatest invention the human mind has ever created for gathering empirical knowledge. As such, it is worth understanding, emulating, and defending.
science is about one’s attitude and not one’s method—about seeking justification rather than jumping to a conclusion about truth.
So we now understand why ideological theories like intelligent design and denialism about climate change should not be considered scientific, because they in some ways rely on the antithesis of the scientific attitude. They champion ideology over evidence. They have no humility over the fact that scientific investigation pushes us not toward certainty, but more likely toward abandoning some false idea that we desperately wanted to believe.
December 8, 2020
The definition of scientific attitude is somewhat tautological and vague, but the book is still valuable and worth reading even if the attempt to overcome Popper is not fully successful.
October 7, 2023
Basically the book is the queasy mixture of the the philosophy of science and the crank skepticism movement, with their paranoid shrill rants of 'science under attack'.
Probably the only reason this book has a tiny culture following, is because the hard-core skeptics are abyssmally awful at philosophy, to the point of being cringeworthy with weak arguments.
Personally, i would just run from anyone with that childishly narcissistic mentality of science under attack, where it's only a factor in the bible belt and how they turn the textbook publishing industry at the most basic levels into cowards about Darwin...
But the problem is that some of the 'trust science' crowd are a bunch of fanatical morons, where it ends up being a scientistic 'faith' in science with all the shrill waste of oxygen. The last thing we need is moralistic preachy bullshit.
Another irritating quirk are the 'scientific method' fanatics which basically turned into a schoolbook cult after 1900 into the curriculum.
It's nothing more than doing experiments, and if an experiment contradicts theory, the theory is wrong. That's all.
The trend for hollow phrases like 'scientific method' and 'critical thinking' to me is some inferiority complex within some factions within science, who just can't calm down and realize that it all boils down to good judgement.
Maybe the problem is that way too many scientists and philosophers have poor judgement.
And it goes without saying that it's out there in the media, government and general public as well.
I think there is much right with Sir Alfred Ayer's philosophical statements about 99% of morals and metaphysics, that what 'most people' are doing is just ranting about their personal likes and dislikes
and very few things are sophisticated statements about morality, politics, government, religion and metaphysics, it's just personal opinion
a. I like THIS, keep doing that!
b. I hate that, stop doing that!
And well, some second-rate philosophers and third-rate so-called skeptics, just hate denial and fraud and more importantly, opinions they loathe.
Relax it's just an opinion.
.......
Amazone
Misses the point
2/10
This book expends a lot of prose cheerleading the scientific ideals, which is easy to do. The more substantive conversation is about the failings of science, where it falls short of its ideals, and why and how to fix it.
This book cherry-picks easy situations, such as cold fusion, where science was self-fixing, but it dodges the hard questions, such as the Mann hockey stick deception, or the demonization of IQ due to political objections.
A missed opportunity and in the end, an empty read.
Katie Flanagan
---
I found the book to be rather bland, and a slog to get to the end. My introduction to McIntyre was through an essay he wrote after his attendance at a flat earth conference.
McIntyre began to lose my interest in the first chapter, The Scientific Method and the Problem Of Demarcation, basically Science is not the scientific method, and where does one draw the line between what is and is not science.
McIntyre quotes Hume in regard to induction
“... I dine, I play a game of backgammon, I converse and am merry with my friends, and when after three or four hours of amusement, I would return to these speculations, they appear cold, and strained, and ridiculous, that I cannot find in my heart to enter into them any farther.”
I quite often felt this way about reading McIntyre’s book.
McIntyre provides fodder for the anti science folks with statements such as, “The most important thing about science is that we try and find failure.”
I would submit that the most important thing about science is that we try to find truth, and along the way, in sciences self correcting nature, we expose failure
He goes off on tangents about how the social sciences might become “science”, using medicine as a prime example of a pathway to be followed.
Basically, McIntyre is preaching to the choir....
Perhaps if science is really under attack, it’s defenders should develop more of a spine....
If you find the language of philosophy as per the above mentioned section of Hume’s quote, this book may provide an anguishing journey.
Immer
---
December 3, 2020
Put this on your reading list if you are interested in the history and philosophy of science.
There are many attempts at understanding what makes science distinctive. The author argues the distinction is an attitude, a “scientific attitude". Through this well-documented book, he defines this as an appreciation for empirical evidence and a willingness to change theories based on this evidence.
As a philosopher of science, he acknowledges that:
1. There is no scientific method
2. Trying to create demarcation criteria are old-fashioned
3. “Scientism” is dangerous
Defining science based on a universal method or through necessary and sufficient conditions have ultimately been realizable. He prefers a definition of science based on a common attitude towards evidence and theories and on participation in a social institution of peer-review, quantitative methods of research, open sharing of data and the critical evaluation of ideas.
An improvement of the book would include more development on what constitutes empirical evidence. For instance, what is an observation? What is a measurement? How do human beings agree on what constitutes meaningful evidence? While the experiments are mentioned there is no detailed explanation of what is or how it is designed. The author criticizes some social research but never mentions that in social research there are more variables to control for than in physical science reach making the design of experiments more complex.
Also, what are theories? The author vacillates between the idea that theories are tentative explanations to theories can be proven right or wrong. The idea of science as "self-correcting" suggests there is a path to the "right" theory (at other times the author refers to the "self-correcting" as an aspect of peer review and critical reflection which it properly is). But theories are always incomplete and always up for revision. Theories are a set inferences created from observations and assumptions. Once a theory is created it still accounts or explains the observations it was predicated on although new observation might make that theory less satisfying. At that point theories might be modified or replaced or simply fall into disuse. I think when the word "truth" is used that is final assessment of the validity of a theory which undermines the claim that a theory is tentative.
One problem with books describing science is the use of the adjective "scientific." It begs questions: How is a fact different from a scientific fact? Is scientific thinking different from thinking? Is a scientific theory different from a theory? It would be interesting to see a book that never used it to describe or define science.
The book is describing "Science" with a big "S" as a social institution and not "science" as in form of reasoning all human beings are capable of doing. Professional research groups have institutionalized the "scientific attitude" but logically it means that every human being in these groups and in their research are scientist but in their personal lives they may not exercise the "scientific attitude." Why are many physicists from the Cold War era, who worked on military projects using a "scientific attitude", the leading climate change deniers (see Oreskes and Conway, 2010 referenced in the book)? This needs to be explained. Why don't those cultivated with a "scientific attitude" maintain it consistently.
This is a very interesting book. I'm glad it includes this quote from Karl Popper (from the Logic of Scientific Discovery), "what is to be called a 'science' and who is to be called a 'scientist' must always remain a matter of convention or decision."
There are many attempts at understanding what makes science distinctive. The author argues the distinction is an attitude, a “scientific attitude". Through this well-documented book, he defines this as an appreciation for empirical evidence and a willingness to change theories based on this evidence.
As a philosopher of science, he acknowledges that:
1. There is no scientific method
2. Trying to create demarcation criteria are old-fashioned
3. “Scientism” is dangerous
Defining science based on a universal method or through necessary and sufficient conditions have ultimately been realizable. He prefers a definition of science based on a common attitude towards evidence and theories and on participation in a social institution of peer-review, quantitative methods of research, open sharing of data and the critical evaluation of ideas.
An improvement of the book would include more development on what constitutes empirical evidence. For instance, what is an observation? What is a measurement? How do human beings agree on what constitutes meaningful evidence? While the experiments are mentioned there is no detailed explanation of what is or how it is designed. The author criticizes some social research but never mentions that in social research there are more variables to control for than in physical science reach making the design of experiments more complex.
Also, what are theories? The author vacillates between the idea that theories are tentative explanations to theories can be proven right or wrong. The idea of science as "self-correcting" suggests there is a path to the "right" theory (at other times the author refers to the "self-correcting" as an aspect of peer review and critical reflection which it properly is). But theories are always incomplete and always up for revision. Theories are a set inferences created from observations and assumptions. Once a theory is created it still accounts or explains the observations it was predicated on although new observation might make that theory less satisfying. At that point theories might be modified or replaced or simply fall into disuse. I think when the word "truth" is used that is final assessment of the validity of a theory which undermines the claim that a theory is tentative.
One problem with books describing science is the use of the adjective "scientific." It begs questions: How is a fact different from a scientific fact? Is scientific thinking different from thinking? Is a scientific theory different from a theory? It would be interesting to see a book that never used it to describe or define science.
The book is describing "Science" with a big "S" as a social institution and not "science" as in form of reasoning all human beings are capable of doing. Professional research groups have institutionalized the "scientific attitude" but logically it means that every human being in these groups and in their research are scientist but in their personal lives they may not exercise the "scientific attitude." Why are many physicists from the Cold War era, who worked on military projects using a "scientific attitude", the leading climate change deniers (see Oreskes and Conway, 2010 referenced in the book)? This needs to be explained. Why don't those cultivated with a "scientific attitude" maintain it consistently.
This is a very interesting book. I'm glad it includes this quote from Karl Popper (from the Logic of Scientific Discovery), "what is to be called a 'science' and who is to be called a 'scientist' must always remain a matter of convention or decision."
August 17, 2023
I didn't pay close enough attention to the subject of this book before I started it. Rather then being another book justifying scientific evidence in the face of denial about specific phenomena, McIntyre has written a book that takes a deep look at the principles and practice of scientific discovery and research. He then coins the term "scientific attitude" to describe a frame of mind when observing the universe that is based on empirical evidence and the conclusions drawn from it. Obviously, the author would like to see everybody embrace the scientific attitude, not just scientists. I tend to agree.
He does not equate a scientific attitude with the traditional concept of the scientific method, which he is not convinced is even valid. The scientific attitude is more like a predisposition and commitment to follow the path of evidence that leads to truth, no matter how much it may contradict prevailing opinions, common sense, or widely-held assumptions. Along the way, he does deal with science denial, fraud, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and just good old fashion ignorance. He is brutally honest about how some scientists take short cuts or become compromised for a whole host of reasons. But he emphasizes that ultimately, the larger scientific community still functions as a self-checking, corrective body.
Some of the most interesting parts of the book are his discussions on the impact the scientific attitude had on the development of modern medicine, especially beginning in the early 20th century. Even through times of major setback, an adherence to a scientific attitude culminated in discoveries that have saved countless lives, from germ theory to vaccines. Speaking of theories, McIntyre doesn't skip the opportunity to explain what the term "theory" means in the scientific world, which always bears repeating.
I was also fascinated with how hard McIntyre comes down on the social sciences, stressing that that psychologists and socialists would do the world a favor, not to mention their own disciplines, by adopting the scientific attitude in conducting their research. He devotes an entire chapter near the end of the book to this topic. He observes how important this critical approach could be in better understanding patterns of behavior and predicting outcomes from everything from personal finance to politics. This book is not an easy read by any means, but it is an important look at how we "do" science.
He does not equate a scientific attitude with the traditional concept of the scientific method, which he is not convinced is even valid. The scientific attitude is more like a predisposition and commitment to follow the path of evidence that leads to truth, no matter how much it may contradict prevailing opinions, common sense, or widely-held assumptions. Along the way, he does deal with science denial, fraud, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and just good old fashion ignorance. He is brutally honest about how some scientists take short cuts or become compromised for a whole host of reasons. But he emphasizes that ultimately, the larger scientific community still functions as a self-checking, corrective body.
Some of the most interesting parts of the book are his discussions on the impact the scientific attitude had on the development of modern medicine, especially beginning in the early 20th century. Even through times of major setback, an adherence to a scientific attitude culminated in discoveries that have saved countless lives, from germ theory to vaccines. Speaking of theories, McIntyre doesn't skip the opportunity to explain what the term "theory" means in the scientific world, which always bears repeating.
I was also fascinated with how hard McIntyre comes down on the social sciences, stressing that that psychologists and socialists would do the world a favor, not to mention their own disciplines, by adopting the scientific attitude in conducting their research. He devotes an entire chapter near the end of the book to this topic. He observes how important this critical approach could be in better understanding patterns of behavior and predicting outcomes from everything from personal finance to politics. This book is not an easy read by any means, but it is an important look at how we "do" science.
Read
November 2, 2025This started out very strong. The first third or so of it is much like a crash course on some central concepts from the philosophy of science. McIntyre provides an engaging and enlightening discussion of the idea of falsificationism in science and why Karl Popper didn’t quite answer the question of demarcation. He also reviews many important ideas from philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn and Larry Laudan, and other smaller names. (Although on a side note: I am surprised that he spills so much ink over Popper, Kuhn, and Laudan, and some other smaller names in the philosophy of science, but only references the eminent Imre Lakatos in passing a single time… seems like a weird gap in the book.)
There are also some great stories from the history of science that Lee McIntyre tells. The stories of Ignaz Semmelweis, who began to make the first strides toward the germ theory of disease in the eighteenth century, and Harlen Bretz, an American geologist known for his explanation for the formation of the Columbia River Plateau, were particularly fascinating.
However, after McIntyre lays out his own “definition” of science as fields where researchers use the “scientific attitude”—which basically boils down to (1) they care about evidence that they can see, hear, feel, touch, or taste (i.e., empirical evidence), and (2) they change their theories with new information—the book becomes extremely repetitive and somewhat redundant at times. The chapter on the social sciences was okay, but as a social scientist myself, it kind of stuck out like a sore thumb that McIntyre may not have as sophisticated a knowledge of how social scientific research is done as he thinks he does. The discussions of pseudoscience and denialism are also decent, but again just kind of baggy and repetitive.
This is not a long book, but I think it could have been shorter. Maybe it would have been better as a lengthy article published in a place like the New Yorker or Harper’s rather than an entire book. I’m not sure. I’m glad I read it, because I got several new book recommendations from the references. But I’m not sure it’s something I’ll be pressing into others’ hands as an essential read.
There are also some great stories from the history of science that Lee McIntyre tells. The stories of Ignaz Semmelweis, who began to make the first strides toward the germ theory of disease in the eighteenth century, and Harlen Bretz, an American geologist known for his explanation for the formation of the Columbia River Plateau, were particularly fascinating.
However, after McIntyre lays out his own “definition” of science as fields where researchers use the “scientific attitude”—which basically boils down to (1) they care about evidence that they can see, hear, feel, touch, or taste (i.e., empirical evidence), and (2) they change their theories with new information—the book becomes extremely repetitive and somewhat redundant at times. The chapter on the social sciences was okay, but as a social scientist myself, it kind of stuck out like a sore thumb that McIntyre may not have as sophisticated a knowledge of how social scientific research is done as he thinks he does. The discussions of pseudoscience and denialism are also decent, but again just kind of baggy and repetitive.
This is not a long book, but I think it could have been shorter. Maybe it would have been better as a lengthy article published in a place like the New Yorker or Harper’s rather than an entire book. I’m not sure. I’m glad I read it, because I got several new book recommendations from the references. But I’m not sure it’s something I’ll be pressing into others’ hands as an essential read.
July 18, 2020
Lee McIntrye is a philosopher of science at Boston University and has written extensively on the topics of the philosophy of science as well as the philosophy of social science.
McIntyre, like philosophers of science before him including Popper, Kuhn, and Laudan find that the traditional attempts to distinguish science from nonscience, so that what is in one column is strictly science, and what's in the other is nonscience, or perhaps pseudoscience to be a failure. This is the classic problem of demarcation and is one of the main themes discussed through out the book. As well, McIntyre, again, like the philosophers before him argue that there is no such thing as a scientific method or methods. This is not to say that scientists don't use methods, they do, the hypothetico-deductive model for example comes to mind. But for McIntyre the scientific attitude is what is the heart of science and not so much the methods of science.
McIntyre defines the scientific attitude as caring about evidence and being willing to change one's theories based on new evidence. He says that this attitude is a necessary but not sufficient condition for science, this is one of the ways he believes rescues science from being held down by the demarcation problem.
The author discusses this attitude as he weaves narratives together that represent the best and worst from the history of science. From the fraud of Wakefield related to autism to the work of Harlen Bretz and his struggles with the scientific community due to his theory regarding a megaflood to topics like continental drift to the struggles of modern medicine to become a science-based enterprise. For all of these the scientific attitude is central.
As well McIntyre delves into the problems of pseudoscience such as young earth creationism, Intelligent Design ideology, and a few others.
This is a well written book and one of the most interesting ones I've read in sometime. I can see me referencing it in my many discussions and will mostly likely read again.
McIntyre, like philosophers of science before him including Popper, Kuhn, and Laudan find that the traditional attempts to distinguish science from nonscience, so that what is in one column is strictly science, and what's in the other is nonscience, or perhaps pseudoscience to be a failure. This is the classic problem of demarcation and is one of the main themes discussed through out the book. As well, McIntyre, again, like the philosophers before him argue that there is no such thing as a scientific method or methods. This is not to say that scientists don't use methods, they do, the hypothetico-deductive model for example comes to mind. But for McIntyre the scientific attitude is what is the heart of science and not so much the methods of science.
McIntyre defines the scientific attitude as caring about evidence and being willing to change one's theories based on new evidence. He says that this attitude is a necessary but not sufficient condition for science, this is one of the ways he believes rescues science from being held down by the demarcation problem.
The author discusses this attitude as he weaves narratives together that represent the best and worst from the history of science. From the fraud of Wakefield related to autism to the work of Harlen Bretz and his struggles with the scientific community due to his theory regarding a megaflood to topics like continental drift to the struggles of modern medicine to become a science-based enterprise. For all of these the scientific attitude is central.
As well McIntyre delves into the problems of pseudoscience such as young earth creationism, Intelligent Design ideology, and a few others.
This is a well written book and one of the most interesting ones I've read in sometime. I can see me referencing it in my many discussions and will mostly likely read again.
June 19, 2025
More of a history on the philosophy of science and its difficulties. The author looks closely at Kuhl and Popper’s research and contemporary critics of both.
The author claims the approaches of trying to determine a demarcation line between science and non-science or pseudoscience and the idea of identifying a scientific method aka falsibilty have not helped society defend science and ironically have made it easier for denialism, ideological bias and illiberalism to undermine science.
The author believes the better approach is to look at the attitudes of scientists - openness to peer review, collecting empirical evidence, devising testable theories and having a willingness to change one’s mind on new evidence as being more important.
Science is about having a good theory and cleverly exploring the theories truthfulness compared with empirical data and verifying the results with peers who can reproduce them. This attitude is what makes science a unique endeavor and also helps defend it.
As the alternatives do not have comprehensive empirical data or cherry pick their data ignoring p-values (randomness vs causation), effect size, sample size and don’t believe in changing their ideas based on countering empirical data or even believe in the necessity of peer review. Alternatives believe they are already in possession of the truth and only accept data and peers that confirms their ideas.
True scientists recognize that there is no 100% certainty as it is impossible to collect all the empirical data for all time, instead we have approximations to the truth and a system for building ever better approximations.
The author claims the approaches of trying to determine a demarcation line between science and non-science or pseudoscience and the idea of identifying a scientific method aka falsibilty have not helped society defend science and ironically have made it easier for denialism, ideological bias and illiberalism to undermine science.
The author believes the better approach is to look at the attitudes of scientists - openness to peer review, collecting empirical evidence, devising testable theories and having a willingness to change one’s mind on new evidence as being more important.
Science is about having a good theory and cleverly exploring the theories truthfulness compared with empirical data and verifying the results with peers who can reproduce them. This attitude is what makes science a unique endeavor and also helps defend it.
As the alternatives do not have comprehensive empirical data or cherry pick their data ignoring p-values (randomness vs causation), effect size, sample size and don’t believe in changing their ideas based on countering empirical data or even believe in the necessity of peer review. Alternatives believe they are already in possession of the truth and only accept data and peers that confirms their ideas.
True scientists recognize that there is no 100% certainty as it is impossible to collect all the empirical data for all time, instead we have approximations to the truth and a system for building ever better approximations.
October 4, 2019
This book was good, but not quite what I had hoped and I am having a difficult time putting my finger on why. I like when McIntyre talks science philosophy, I enjoyed all the Popper and Kuhn the problems of induction and demarcation. I even think his prescription of a more flexible scientific "attitude" instead of a method is interesting and makes sense, but he spends a good part of the book mapping that attitude (or a lack of it) onto fields and researchers but many fo the examples just didn't seem to click, or reinforce his point as well as they could have.
I feel like there are more interesting angles McIntyre could have taken to discuss climate denial but instead he just picks apart a few Ted Cruz interviews as representative. Similar with ID and vaccines McIntyre is quick to dismiss them as looking for evidence to support pre-existing claims, and I'm sure they are, but he seems content to leave that as a hunch with little supporting evidence which is strange in a book about how we can't trust our hunches and need to rely on supporting evidence.
I also would have liked to see him tackle a few more nuanced cases like maybe nutrition, which seems like a field that hews very close to the Scientific Attitude yet seems to contradict itself and have results all over the board.
I feel like there are more interesting angles McIntyre could have taken to discuss climate denial but instead he just picks apart a few Ted Cruz interviews as representative. Similar with ID and vaccines McIntyre is quick to dismiss them as looking for evidence to support pre-existing claims, and I'm sure they are, but he seems content to leave that as a hunch with little supporting evidence which is strange in a book about how we can't trust our hunches and need to rely on supporting evidence.
I also would have liked to see him tackle a few more nuanced cases like maybe nutrition, which seems like a field that hews very close to the Scientific Attitude yet seems to contradict itself and have results all over the board.
June 10, 2019
Such a powerful, philosophical defense of science and its position as 'special' above other ways of knowing. McIntyre is ruthless in his openness and honesty in the mistakes practitioners have made and how these mistakes and their subsequent error corrections only serve to increase the credibility of science and give further justifiable warrant for belief. He demonstrates how the scientific attitude differs from pseudo-science such as 'intelligent design' or alchemy and the fatal mistakes they make. I can already tell I'm going to read this one a second time around.
February 24, 2024
This was the second time through this book, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Having read quite a few text boos on the philosophy of science I was always frustrated by the lack of a clear demarcation and justification of the success of science. The book finds a way through the problem of demarcation by relaxing the sufficient condition and concentrating on necessary conditions. The warrant created by taking evidence seriously and adjusting theory allows progress in understanding and applying knowledge.
October 12, 2021
3,5 en realidad.
El autor no propone ninguna solución al problema de demarcación, salvo lo que él denomina la actitud científica, una manera de pensar crítica, abierta a nuevas evidencias, que busca los fallos de la propia teoría, es decir una especie de método científico convertido en rasgos de personalidad que a mí no es que me haya convencido demasiado.
https://liblit.com/lee-mcintyre-la-ac...
El autor no propone ninguna solución al problema de demarcación, salvo lo que él denomina la actitud científica, una manera de pensar crítica, abierta a nuevas evidencias, que busca los fallos de la propia teoría, es decir una especie de método científico convertido en rasgos de personalidad que a mí no es que me haya convencido demasiado.
https://liblit.com/lee-mcintyre-la-ac...
December 18, 2023
key idea is good and useful (a scientific attitude--commitment to updating beliefs on the basis of evidence--is a necessary condition for considering a field or argument scientific). but the book is longer and more repetitive than needed. and the book is silent on the critical topic of what counts as "evidence"
May 13, 2020
Important stuff.
June 4, 2020
Interesting to give another perspective on the demarcation problem
December 29, 2020
The first half of this book was a bit of a slog to get through. But the second half was more enjoyable, and interesting.
June 12, 2021
A much needed reading these days.
Read
July 6, 2021Excellent discussion on the demarcation problem, science vs. pseudoscience.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 37 reviews