SCIENCE
Definition: Knowledge ascertained by observation and experiment, critically tested, systematized and brought under general principles, esp in relation to the physical world (Chambers Dictionary, 12th Edition, 2011).
S1. Web of Science: Collection of over 32 million science publications
http://thomsonreuters.com/thomson-reuters-web-of-science
S2. PubMed comprises more than 23 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
S3. ScienceDirect: Collection of over 12 million science publications
http://www.sciencedirect.com
S4. Science in "How Stuff Works"
http://science.howstuffworks.com
S5. Faculty of Science - National University of Singapore
http://www.science.nus.edu.sg
PSEUDOSCIENCE
Definition: A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method (New Oxford American Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2010).
P1. What Is Pseudoscience?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pseudoscience
P2. Pseudoscience: What is it? How can I recognize it?
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
P3. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
P3. List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience
P4. Characteristics of pseudoscience:
1 Vague and/or exaggerated claims and ambiguous language
2 Lack of peer review, and claims of vast establishment conspiracies
3 No attempts or interest in replication or outside verification
4 Stasis, and hostility towards development or change of the idea
5 Frequent changes in methodology without changing the conclusions
6 Refusal to use the scientific method, or the claim that it can not be used
7 Misuse of scientific terms
8 Misrepresentation of terms
9 Poor standards of evidence
10 Reliance on negative proofs
11 Reliance on outside or unrelated fields for results
12 Reliance on outdated or later refuted scholarly works
13 Ideas are unfalsifiable
14 Clear political and religious motivation
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
P5: Quackwatch, an alternative medicine watchdog: Aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct"
http://www.quackwatch.org
LITERATURE (26)
P5: Quackwatch, an alternative medicine watchdog: Aims to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct"
http://www.quackwatch.org
LITERATURE (26)
Bunge, M., 1991. What is
science? Does it matter to distinguish it from pseudoscience? A reply to my
commentators. New Ideas in Psychology 9, 245–283.
doi:10.1016/0732-118X(91)90030-P
Burki, T., 2009. Denying
AIDS. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 9, 600. doi:10.1016/S1473-3099(09)70252-X
Coles, E.M., Veiel,
H.O.F., 2001. Expert testimony and pseudoscience: How mental health
professionals are taking over the courtroom. International Journal of Law and
Psychiatry 24, 607–625. doi:10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00100-5
Cone, E.J., 2006.
Ephemeral profiles of prescription drug and formulation tampering: Evolving
pseudoscience on the Internet. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, Drug Formulation
and Abuse Liability 83, Supplement 1, S31–S39.
doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2005.11.027
Gefter, A., 2010. The
fuzzy boundary between science and pseudoscience. New Scientist 206, 48–49.
doi:10.1016/S0262-4079(10)61275-4
Giuffre, M., 1997.
Science, bad science, and pseudoscience. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing 12,
434–438. doi:10.1016/S1089-9472(97)90007-1
Grimes, D.A., Schulz,
K.F., Raymond, E.G., 2010. Surrogate end points in women’s health research:
science, protoscience, and pseudoscience. Fertility and Sterility 93, 1731–1734.
doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.054
Gulrajani, N., 2004. World
Bank pseudoscience? The Lancet 364, 1852–1853.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17431-X
Herbert, J.D., Lilienfeld,
S.O., Lohr, J.M., Montgomery, R.W., O’Donohue, W.T., Rosen, G.M., Tolin, D.F.,
2000. Science and pseudoscience in the development of eye movement
desensitization and reprocessing: Implications for clinical psychology.
Clinical Psychology Review 20, 945–971. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00017-3
Kelly, I.W., Janzen, B.L.,
Saklofske, D.H., 2012. Psychology, Science, and Astrology, in: Ramachandran,
V.S. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition). Academic Press,
San Diego, pp. 218–224.
Kratochwill, T.R., 2012.
Comments on “Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology:”
Evidence-based interventions for grandiose bragging. Journal of School
Psychology 50, 37–42. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.11.003
Lilienfeld, S.O., 2010.
Can psychology become a science? Personality and Individual Differences,
Collected works from the Festschrift for Tom Bouchard, June 2009: A tribute to
a vibrant scientific career 49, 281–288. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.01.024
Lilienfeld, S.O.,
Ammirati, R., David, M., 2012. Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in
school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human
error. Journal of School Psychology 50, 7–36. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006
Makgoba, M.W., 2002.
Politics, the media and science in HIV/AIDS: the peril of pseudoscience.
Vaccine, Global HIV Therapeutics - HIV Vaccines, Nobel Forum, Karolinska 20,
1899–1904. doi:10.1016/S0264-410X(02)00063-4
Monvoisin, R., 2005. Élixirs
floraux de Bach : étude zététique: Critique des concepts pseudo-scientifiques,
pseudo-médicaux et des postures philosophiques induites par la théorie du Dr
Bach. Annales Pharmaceutiques Françaises 63, 416–428.
doi:10.1016/S0003-4509(05)82310-7
Morrison, G.S., 2014.
Distinguishing between forensic science and forensic pseudoscience: Testing of
validity and reliability, and approaches to forensic voice comparison. Science
& Justice 54, 245–256. doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2013.07.004
Okada, F., Kinoshita, S.,
1995. Shinshinsho: clinical entity or pseudoscience? The Lancet 346, 66–67.
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92107-9
Rogers, L.J., 2010. Sexing
the Brain: The Science and Pseudoscience of Sex Differences. The Kaohsiung
Journal of Medical Sciences 26, S4–S9. doi:10.1016/S1607-551X(10)70051-6
Sheldon, M.P., 2014.
Claiming Darwin: Stephen Jay Gould in contests over evolutionary orthodoxy and
public perception, 1977–2002. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part
C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 45,
139–147. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.10.002
Simberloff, D., 2004.
Invasion biology. Critique of a pseudoscience: D.I. Theodoropoulos, Avvar
Books, 2003, ISBN: 0970850417, xiv+237 pp. Ecological Economics 48, 360–362.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2003.11.002
Spaan, J.A.E., 2010. The
danger of pseudoscience in Informetrics. Journal of Informetrics 4, 439–440.
doi:10.1016/j.joi.2010.03.010
Thorp, S.R., 2004. Science
and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Edited by S. O. Lilienfeld, S. J.
Lynn, & J. M. Lohr. New York: Guilford Press, 2003, 474 pages, $42.00.
Journal of Psychosomatic Research 56, 381. doi:10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00119-3
Tye, A., 2005. Invasion
biology: critique of a pseudoscience. Biological Conservation 122, 505–506.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2004.08.003
Uriel Latorre, P., 2009.
Pseudociencia. Enfermería Clínica 19, 238. doi:10.1016/j.enfcli.2009.03.006
Van Rillaer, J., 1991.
Strategies of dissimulation in the pseudosciences. New Ideas in Psychology 9,
235–244. doi:10.1016/0732-118X(91)90029-L
Van Rillaer, J., 2012. La
psychanalyse freudienne : science ou pseudoscience ? Pratique
Neurologique - FMC 3, 348–353. doi:10.1016/j.praneu.2012.09.001
