What do you think?
Rate this book
On the Fringe: Where Science Meets Pseudoscience
Everyone has heard of the term "pseudoscience", typically used to describe something that looks like science, but is somehow false, misleading, or unproven. Many would be able to agree on a list of things that fall under its umbrella-- astrology, phrenology, UFOlogy, creationism, and eugenics might come to mind. But defining what makes these fields "pseudo" is a far more complex issue. It has proved impossible to come up with a simple criterion that enables us to differentiate pseudoscience from genuine science. Given the virulence of contemporary disputes over the denial of climate change and anti-vaccination movements--both of which display allegations of "pseudoscience" on all sides-- there is a clear need to better understand issues of scientific demarcation.
On the Fringe explores the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation. This book argues that by understanding doctrines that are often seen as antithetical to science, we can learn a great deal about how science operated in the past and does today. This exploration raises several questions: How does a doctrine become demonized as pseudoscientific? Who has the authority to make these pronouncements? How is the status of science shaped by political or cultural contexts? How does pseudoscience differ from scientific fraud?
Michael D. Gordin both answers these questions and guides readers along a bewildering array of marginalized doctrines, looking at parapsychology (ESP), Lysenkoism, scientific racism, and alchemy, among others, to better understand the struggle to define what science is and is not, and how the controversies have shifted over the centuries. On the Fringe provides a historical tour through many of these fringe fields in order to provide tools to think deeply about scientific controversies both in the past and in our present.
On the Fringe explores the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation. This book argues that by understanding doctrines that are often seen as antithetical to science, we can learn a great deal about how science operated in the past and does today. This exploration raises several questions: How does a doctrine become demonized as pseudoscientific? Who has the authority to make these pronouncements? How is the status of science shaped by political or cultural contexts? How does pseudoscience differ from scientific fraud?
Michael D. Gordin both answers these questions and guides readers along a bewildering array of marginalized doctrines, looking at parapsychology (ESP), Lysenkoism, scientific racism, and alchemy, among others, to better understand the struggle to define what science is and is not, and how the controversies have shifted over the centuries. On the Fringe provides a historical tour through many of these fringe fields in order to provide tools to think deeply about scientific controversies both in the past and in our present.
136 pages, Hardcover
First published April 19, 2021
36 people are currently reading
574 people want to read
About the author
Michael D. Gordin
25 books36 followersMichael Gordin is Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History at Princeton University, where he specializes in the history of modern science. In 2013-4 he served as the inaugural director of the Fung Global Fellows Program. He came to Princeton in 2003 after earning his A.B. (1996) and his Ph.D. (2001) from Harvard University, and serving a term at the Harvard Society of Fellows. In 2011 he was awarded a National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowship and was named a Guggenheim Fellow. He has published on the history of science, Russian history, and the history of nuclear weapons.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews
September 23, 2021
This little book is a pleasant surprise. That word 'little', by the way, is not intended as an insult, but a compliment. Kudos to OUP for realising that a book doesn't have to be three inches thick to be interesting. It's just 101 pages before you get to the notes - and that's plenty.
The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science.
Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a number of types (though these can overlap), an analysis that is very revealing. Some he describes as vestigial science - people clinging onto a theory after the scientific consensus has moved away from it. (Pointing out that occasionally the pendulum can swing back.) Others he describes as 'hyperpoliticized sciences' - the Nazi's 'German' science, for example, or the Soviet Union's suppression of genetics under Stalin. In other cases, the driver is 'fighting establishment science' - here the pseudoscience is supported by conventional means such as journals and conferences, but set up in opposition to what is seen as restrictive establishment view. (He also gives over a chapter to mental science, including ESP, though this seems the weakest content of the book, as it isn't really an equivalent category.)
What was also interesting was Gordin's relatively brief coverage of denial, which despite being brief handles the topic much better here than McIntyre's complete book on it, How to Talk to a Science Denier. Denial, as Gordin points out, is not what is involved with something like Flat Earth 'science' or 'creation science'. Supporters of these concepts believe they are presenting the scientific truth. It is rather when an anti-science viewpoint is deliberately pushed to support a different agenda - whether it's over the impact of cigarette smoking or climate change. The technique here is not an attempt to be scientific, but a deliberate move to cast doubt on the science, always suggesting there needs to be more evidence.
I appreciate this book is quite a niche interest, but for me it was fascinating. It might feel as if it's a bit of a cop-out that Gordin effectively says there aren't really solutions to this - the only way to get rid of pseudoscience (as opposed to denial) is to get rid of science, but I suspect he is right. Either way it's a very effective and readable analysis.
The topic is fringe science or pseudoscience: it could be heavy going in a condensed form, but in fact Michael Gordin keeps the tone light and readable. In some ways, the most interesting bit is when Gordin plunges into just what pseudoscience actually is. As he points out, there are elements of subjectivity to this. For example, some would say that string theory is pseudoscience, even though many real scientists have dedicated their careers to it. Gordin also points out that, outside of denial (more on this a moment), many supporters of what most of us label pseudoscience do use the scientific method and see themselves as doing actual science.
Gordin breaks pseudoscience down into a number of types (though these can overlap), an analysis that is very revealing. Some he describes as vestigial science - people clinging onto a theory after the scientific consensus has moved away from it. (Pointing out that occasionally the pendulum can swing back.) Others he describes as 'hyperpoliticized sciences' - the Nazi's 'German' science, for example, or the Soviet Union's suppression of genetics under Stalin. In other cases, the driver is 'fighting establishment science' - here the pseudoscience is supported by conventional means such as journals and conferences, but set up in opposition to what is seen as restrictive establishment view. (He also gives over a chapter to mental science, including ESP, though this seems the weakest content of the book, as it isn't really an equivalent category.)
What was also interesting was Gordin's relatively brief coverage of denial, which despite being brief handles the topic much better here than McIntyre's complete book on it, How to Talk to a Science Denier. Denial, as Gordin points out, is not what is involved with something like Flat Earth 'science' or 'creation science'. Supporters of these concepts believe they are presenting the scientific truth. It is rather when an anti-science viewpoint is deliberately pushed to support a different agenda - whether it's over the impact of cigarette smoking or climate change. The technique here is not an attempt to be scientific, but a deliberate move to cast doubt on the science, always suggesting there needs to be more evidence.
I appreciate this book is quite a niche interest, but for me it was fascinating. It might feel as if it's a bit of a cop-out that Gordin effectively says there aren't really solutions to this - the only way to get rid of pseudoscience (as opposed to denial) is to get rid of science, but I suspect he is right. Either way it's a very effective and readable analysis.
August 15, 2025
(pre-reading for my university) i know what a parapsychology is now
January 31, 2023
Brief, to-the-point, clear-eyed look at the phenomenon of fringe science. Nice overview with some cautionary remarks on what--and what not--to do about it.
July 16, 2025
It was interesting to read about the different types of pseudoscience, but he didn’t give any good explanation as to how to avoid it or how to actually delineate between real science and pseudoscience, which I guess is nearly impossible. Still, it was an interesting read, but one I wouldn’t return to.
June 19, 2021
This was a very informative book that directly addresses the subject of Pseudoscience in a well-organized and interesting way. I learned quite a bit from reading it and I look forward to exploring this topic more in the future. The length of the book suits its subject matter as well as the author's thesis quite well, and though the language can be a bit difficult at times, it is relatively easy to digest the information thanks to the very well-selected examples. It is a quick read but if you're not well versed in scientific writing/history, be prepared to take notes and look up words/people/theories for more information.
April 12, 2025
This book, about the distinction between science and pseudoscience, would make for the perfect course outline for a part of an “introduction to the sciences” class in the later years of secondary education or early years of college. I hope it inspires some teacher to integrate these talking points into a good portion of a semester class. As a book, I’m resigned to believe that it won’t have as much impact as it could have simply because enthusiasts such as myself already know most of this, and the people most likely to benefit will probably never pick it up.
The book is short and to the point - only 101 pages before notes - and is clearly organized by topic, with extensive notes and suggestions for further reading. Areas covered include UFO’s, water memory, cold fusion, eugenics, flat-Earthers, and much more. Those readers just beginning to explore the sciences will be captivated by how easily pseudoscience passes for real science, and how easily pseudoscience attains funding and dissemination in the infosphere. I found the last chapter most interesting: how think tanks sponsored by corporations or special interest groups submit studies and white papers that pass as scientific information, when in fact, they are not peer reviewed and usually aim to sow dissension or confusion against a consensus based on verifiable evidence. This all began in 1954 with an American marketing firm hired by the tobacco industry to forestall the research that was showing the negative effects of smoking.
Falling under the category of misinformation, and something I’ve noticed more in the last couple years since this book was written in 2021, is the rise of AI-generated scientific “fake news.” Every day on Google News, Facebook, and YouTube I see fantastic clickbait with titles like “Scientist proves there was never a Big Bang,” or “Evidence that conscious intelligence arose before life” which are all tempting to look at. But, after being burned 99% of the time, I know better than to click, because that will only increase the algorithm to disseminate this nonsense. Most of these AI-generated articles and AI-voiced videos have as a root a single speculative comment by some well-known popularizer like Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson, then AI extrapolates an entire article designed for maximum views. But remember folks, like Carl Sagan admonished: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”
The most interesting point in the book for me was that to stifle all pseudoscience by insisting on peer review and conformity to established scientific methods, nearly all innovation in the sciences would be lost. Certainly any of the revolutionary ideas that change the face of science. And, as I’ve said myself in reviews on books about education, we can’t blame the internet or scream that we need to throw more money at the education system, because pseudoscience has been around for centuries, and the flat-Earthers making the rounds on media outlets today all had the same education as I had or any other scientist. It comes down to whether students are brought up in an environment that values the process of how to think, how to arrive at an understanding of something by looking at facts rather than just sitting passively and absorbing information that may very well be tainted by ideology, religion, or cultural traditions. Gordin’s last chapter describes perfectly how this all plays out, and that, unfortunately, science will always have the shadow of pseudoscience at its side. Whether the shadows are benign or if they hide monsters is something that rational human beings will have to continue to wrestle with well into the future.
The book is short and to the point - only 101 pages before notes - and is clearly organized by topic, with extensive notes and suggestions for further reading. Areas covered include UFO’s, water memory, cold fusion, eugenics, flat-Earthers, and much more. Those readers just beginning to explore the sciences will be captivated by how easily pseudoscience passes for real science, and how easily pseudoscience attains funding and dissemination in the infosphere. I found the last chapter most interesting: how think tanks sponsored by corporations or special interest groups submit studies and white papers that pass as scientific information, when in fact, they are not peer reviewed and usually aim to sow dissension or confusion against a consensus based on verifiable evidence. This all began in 1954 with an American marketing firm hired by the tobacco industry to forestall the research that was showing the negative effects of smoking.
Falling under the category of misinformation, and something I’ve noticed more in the last couple years since this book was written in 2021, is the rise of AI-generated scientific “fake news.” Every day on Google News, Facebook, and YouTube I see fantastic clickbait with titles like “Scientist proves there was never a Big Bang,” or “Evidence that conscious intelligence arose before life” which are all tempting to look at. But, after being burned 99% of the time, I know better than to click, because that will only increase the algorithm to disseminate this nonsense. Most of these AI-generated articles and AI-voiced videos have as a root a single speculative comment by some well-known popularizer like Michio Kaku or Neil deGrasse Tyson, then AI extrapolates an entire article designed for maximum views. But remember folks, like Carl Sagan admonished: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!”
The most interesting point in the book for me was that to stifle all pseudoscience by insisting on peer review and conformity to established scientific methods, nearly all innovation in the sciences would be lost. Certainly any of the revolutionary ideas that change the face of science. And, as I’ve said myself in reviews on books about education, we can’t blame the internet or scream that we need to throw more money at the education system, because pseudoscience has been around for centuries, and the flat-Earthers making the rounds on media outlets today all had the same education as I had or any other scientist. It comes down to whether students are brought up in an environment that values the process of how to think, how to arrive at an understanding of something by looking at facts rather than just sitting passively and absorbing information that may very well be tainted by ideology, religion, or cultural traditions. Gordin’s last chapter describes perfectly how this all plays out, and that, unfortunately, science will always have the shadow of pseudoscience at its side. Whether the shadows are benign or if they hide monsters is something that rational human beings will have to continue to wrestle with well into the future.
February 10, 2025
I read the abridged version on Blinkist.
This book deals with the question: where does science end and where does pseudoscience start?
In the age of social media filled with crookery and making us intellectually numb from information overload, this is question might even beg further pondering. Science evolves, theories come and go as we understand even more, even better, and this is all normal - however, how can we make out the difference between a widely accepted and proven theory and just pure crookery? The author makes an interesting difference between pseudosciences which used to be considered science, such as astrology, and how anti-establishment movements married pseudoscience, like ufology or anti-vaxxers.
The book won't offer much recommendation as to how to deal with the spread of pseudoscience and crookery, but provides a valuable insight into how the notion developed throughout history until recently.
As a conclusion of how much we really need people to be more scientifically literate, let me share with you a snippet that left me baffled:
In the 1980s, Popper's demarcation criterion was held up in the U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguilard to determine that scientific creationism did not meet the criterion of science and could thus not be taught in schools. As a result, Popper's theory was enshrined as a legal doctrine and incorporated into high school biology texts until 2005 when Judge John E. Jones III altered the demarcation criterion to a less rigid standard.
I guess Popper's demarcation criterion was not yet enshrined when the honourable judge went to school...
This book deals with the question: where does science end and where does pseudoscience start?
In the age of social media filled with crookery and making us intellectually numb from information overload, this is question might even beg further pondering. Science evolves, theories come and go as we understand even more, even better, and this is all normal - however, how can we make out the difference between a widely accepted and proven theory and just pure crookery? The author makes an interesting difference between pseudosciences which used to be considered science, such as astrology, and how anti-establishment movements married pseudoscience, like ufology or anti-vaxxers.
The book won't offer much recommendation as to how to deal with the spread of pseudoscience and crookery, but provides a valuable insight into how the notion developed throughout history until recently.
As a conclusion of how much we really need people to be more scientifically literate, let me share with you a snippet that left me baffled:
In the 1980s, Popper's demarcation criterion was held up in the U.S. Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguilard to determine that scientific creationism did not meet the criterion of science and could thus not be taught in schools. As a result, Popper's theory was enshrined as a legal doctrine and incorporated into high school biology texts until 2005 when Judge John E. Jones III altered the demarcation criterion to a less rigid standard.
I guess Popper's demarcation criterion was not yet enshrined when the honourable judge went to school...
September 10, 2021
This book was about the how and why of pseudoscience and the ways in which it is defined. The only real flaw with this book is that is was often too brief, but as a simple, readable overview this was an excellent starting point.
Part of the book was the way in which he explained the difference between contra-factual endeavors that people invest belief in, and things that were simply bad science, either deliberately or unintentionally. I do wish that he had clarified one comment which suggested that the "cold fusion" scientists had deliberately released fake results, but otherwise this part of the book was very interesting and informative.
I was not surprised that the anti-vaxxer concept was as old as vaccines, but I was surprised at how recent the "flat earth" belief was. The ways in which other industries copied the tactics of the tobacco industry in terms of delaying real science's results were things I had encountered, but his explanation was far more clear than any I had seen elsewhere.
If he does something more detailed on this same subject, I would definitely read it. I am now curious to see what else he has written.
Part of the book was the way in which he explained the difference between contra-factual endeavors that people invest belief in, and things that were simply bad science, either deliberately or unintentionally. I do wish that he had clarified one comment which suggested that the "cold fusion" scientists had deliberately released fake results, but otherwise this part of the book was very interesting and informative.
I was not surprised that the anti-vaxxer concept was as old as vaccines, but I was surprised at how recent the "flat earth" belief was. The ways in which other industries copied the tactics of the tobacco industry in terms of delaying real science's results were things I had encountered, but his explanation was far more clear than any I had seen elsewhere.
If he does something more detailed on this same subject, I would definitely read it. I am now curious to see what else he has written.
August 7, 2025
I got the survey of various failed episodes of intellectual endeavor in human history, but also a nuanced discussion of how science progresses. This is not The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but it is a realistic treatment of where science goes off the rails and how science progresses. The essential competitiveness of the sector is treated in the last chapter, and some possible adjustments to the scholarly endeavor are raised, though interestingly the only one that seemed to survive the author's own skepticism is changing the reward system in higher education to favor fewer publications, stressing quality over quantity. Quality is, of course, a desired goal of all serious researchers, but in the end it is speed of publication, claims to first discovery, and sheer number of papers that seems to drive scholarship. Personally, I have never understood the tenure system, and believe academics should be reviewed annually for teaching, research, and other community contributions just like workers in all other professional occupations. I hope no university is going to judge its researchers on grant funding received during the Trump administration. That will not work.
October 10, 2021
In this short volume, Dr. Gordon makes a meaningful survey of what has been called pseudoscience in an attempt to find common features. He presents several striking examples from history and current times, introduces the problem of demarcation, and the problematic nature of Popper's definition of science by its falsifiability. He concludes by recognizing that there is not one definition of pseudoscience that fits all things designated as such. Psedoscience mostly arises on the fringe of currently excepted science. Such ideas or parts of them may make a way into accepted science but that which does not remains pseudoscience. The problem comes in when people continue to support, believe, and propound these, often demonstrateably false notions as science. Because pseudoscience acts like science, it can be difficult for many to recognize the errors.
Great read. Delves into the murky waters on the fringe.
The book contains a preface, 7 chapters (starting with the demarcation problem), a section of notes, further reading and an index.
Great read. Delves into the murky waters on the fringe.
The book contains a preface, 7 chapters (starting with the demarcation problem), a section of notes, further reading and an index.
October 19, 2021
I didn’t find this particularly insightful—I’m more interested in the why of the matter—but it helped me sort my thinking on delusional movements. The author surveys a range of pseudosciences—from alchemy, phrenology, eugenics, creationism, parapsychology and the very odd “Aryan physics” (as opposed to Einstein’s “Jewish physics.”)
The most useful idea from this book for me is that of the counter-establishment, where alienation meets conspiracy theory to create out-groups who see themselves as rebelling against the lies fed to us sheeple. I think that’s the only meaningful way to describe the flat-earthers, UFO believers and anti-vaxers who lack any rational arguments to support their delusions. So there is a very clear line between some of the trends the author surveys that I don’t feel was differentiated. They’re not all pseudoscience—creationism can be, flat-earth is clearly not.
The most useful idea from this book for me is that of the counter-establishment, where alienation meets conspiracy theory to create out-groups who see themselves as rebelling against the lies fed to us sheeple. I think that’s the only meaningful way to describe the flat-earthers, UFO believers and anti-vaxers who lack any rational arguments to support their delusions. So there is a very clear line between some of the trends the author surveys that I don’t feel was differentiated. They’re not all pseudoscience—creationism can be, flat-earth is clearly not.
July 3, 2023
Pseudoscience is like porn, I know it when I see it, but how exactly do I define it? This is the "demarcation problem." The first (and perhaps most important, and hardest to get through) chapter in this book is devoted to this. In particular, the author discusses how Popper's "falsifiable" criterion fails. Instead he proposes grouping fringe doctrines into "families" which can be studies together: Vestigial (astrology, alchemy, etc); Hyperpoliticized (Aryan physics vs Jewish physics, Eugenics, etc); Mind over matter (Spiritualism, ESP, etc); Fighting 'establishment' science (creationism, Cryptozoology, etc.) Most of the rest of the book is a survey of these families.
June 29, 2025
Intetesting Perspective on "Science"
For the most part a very incisive analysis, the author's bias plays out in his last chapter's view of climate change as "accepted science" only refuted by commercially funded "denialists." It is most unfortunately self-referrentially "accepting as true what needs to be proven." Perhaps I am wrong, but "good science" today should provide (1) Predictive values within a very small confidence limit (2) Acceptance of contravening data and (3) Theoretical underpinning(s) consistent with prior data rather than with prior theories. Sorry, Dean Gordin, but climate change simply does not pass muster. It is "on the fringe."
For the most part a very incisive analysis, the author's bias plays out in his last chapter's view of climate change as "accepted science" only refuted by commercially funded "denialists." It is most unfortunately self-referrentially "accepting as true what needs to be proven." Perhaps I am wrong, but "good science" today should provide (1) Predictive values within a very small confidence limit (2) Acceptance of contravening data and (3) Theoretical underpinning(s) consistent with prior data rather than with prior theories. Sorry, Dean Gordin, but climate change simply does not pass muster. It is "on the fringe."
July 5, 2025
I feel that this book doesn't have much substance to it. The essential thesis regarding the demarcation problem and how science should treat psuedoscience is interesting, but only makes up a relatively small fraction of the book. The majority of it seems to just be a compilation of various examples of psuedoscience sorted into arbitrary and overlapping categories. The importance of these delineations and categories isn't well-established, and most of the examples don't seem to contribute to the thesis in novel ways. On the Fringe seems to be suffering an identity crisis, straddling the line between a historical review of psuedoscience and an analysis of how we perceive it.
August 29, 2025
Princeton Pre-Read for Class of 2029! This book is eye-opening in many ways. It was a fascinating journey to dive deep into the realm of pseudoscience from a historian's perspective. I love the way Gordin writes; it's as if he's giving an engaging lecture in class, which made it easy to "interact" with the content. As someone who likes science, I'm really glad I came across this book. The only reason I didn't give it 5 stars is I still like fiction more haha. At times this book can get a little dry. But overall it's a great read and I highly recommend it to anyone who's interested in pseudoscience.
December 19, 2025
Interesting look at the History of Science. Fascinating history of science in the renaissance and late-renaissance eras. The authors conclusions and applications to current issues in science were left more open to discussion. There is no real conclusion drawn in the book. The authors brief commentary on Science and COVID showed the authors political bias, but otherwise the piece stays incredibly neutral and factual in nature.
Overall an interesting book if you are interested in the history of science.
Overall an interesting book if you are interested in the history of science.
Read
July 29, 2021Thanks to mechanisms of modern science, pseudosciences aren’t going away any time soon. Understanding the question of demarcation can better our understanding of how science functions. Most pseudosciences are harmless, but examining the processes that create scientific movements at the fringe can help us address doctrines that cause significant public harm, such as climate-change denialism or the anti-vaccination movement.
July 29, 2021
Thanks to mechanisms of modern science, pseudosciences aren’t going away any time soon. Understanding the question of demarcation can better our understanding of how science functions. Most pseudosciences are harmless, but examining the processes that create scientific movements at the fringe can help us address doctrines that cause significant public harm, such as climate-change denialism or the anti-vaccination movement.
January 25, 2022
Interesting discussion of legit vs. fake science. Great discussion of the demarcation problem. Gordin fills his examination with many interesting examples from history. It was interesting to see that pseudoscience often began as legit science.
May 17, 2022
Solid. The overview of pseudosciences was mostly review, but I learned more than I expected in the philosophy of science parts. Above all, it doesn't bother with filler: the author focused on a short topic and wrote a short book.
November 3, 2022
Helpful categories for thinking about the line between knowledge and conspiracy, science and pseudo-science, consensus and Fringe. The work has a bit of a rationalistic, empiricistic bias understandably, but overall I definitely recommend the short read.
August 20, 2024
very interesting learning about some topics. I often say to myself "hah, how could they think that, how stupid, of course the world works like this..." but all science was new at some point so I do try to level with those pseudoscience believers
December 23, 2025
Generally enjoyed and learned from this book, although I must say the author comes off too forgiving for the overall pseudoscience project.
Also, he notes that science education does not reduce adherence to pseudoscience, but critical think in skills certainly does. The distinction is important.
Also, he notes that science education does not reduce adherence to pseudoscience, but critical think in skills certainly does. The distinction is important.
February 10, 2022
This is a good introduction to the so-called "Demarcation Problem": the challenge of drawing consistent and accurate lines between science and pseudoscience.
February 10, 2022
I read the blinkist abridgement
February 24, 2022
Un buen libro, explica de forma sencilla y didáctica la problemática que existe para calificar algo como 'pseucientífico'.
January 3, 2023
An insightful examination of pseudoscience from a historical perspective.
March 5, 2023
Provocative. This short survey of the boundaries between science and pseudoscience highlights the permeability of the barrier.
April 15, 2024
The author makes quite a few good points, but he's a little soft on the pseudoscientists, and the book is about as much fun to read as a grocery list.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 38 reviews