pseudoscience; think tanks and other ngo's in math education in particular

Ben Wilbrink

Greg Thompson, Glenn C. Savage & Bob Lingard (2015). Think tanks, edu-businesses and education policy: issues of evidence, expertise and influence. Aust. Educ. Res. DOI 10.1007/s13384-015-0195-y download

• Actually this is an introductory article. For the articles in this special issue see here.
  The paper also considers changing concepts of ‘evidence’, ‘expertise’ and ‘influence’ in respect of the involvement of think tanks and edu-businesses in circulating policy ideas and affecting policy development in Australian education. This introduction to this special issue of The Australian Educational Researcher serves as a provocation to further research on this new policy scenario.

  from the abstract

Ben Williamson (2015). Governing methods: policy innovation labs, design and data science in the digital governance of education. Journal of Educational Administration and History open access

Sotiria Grek 2014. OECD as a site of co-production: European education governance and the new politics of ‘policy mobilization’. Critical policy studies, 8 (3), 266-281. doi: 10.1080/19460171.2013.862503 abstract

• the article shows how the OECD has transformed into a ‘site of coproduction’ of both knowledge and social order (St Clair, A.L., 2006. Global poverty: the co-production of knowledge and politics. Global social policy, 6 (1), 57-77).

  from the abstract

Steven E. Phelan (2001). What Is Complexity Science, Really? Emergence, 3, 120-136. pdf

On constructivism, also.

• The absence of a clear consensus on the definition of science is most clearly illustrated by the stance of the Oxford Dictionary of Science, which has omitted a definition of science and the scientific method altogether!

  The immediate cause of this confusion has been the rise and popularity of postpositivist worldviews such as feminism, postmodernism, and anarchism, which, since the early 1960s, have sought to knock science from its pedestal as the supreme arbiter of truth, objectivity, and rationality. The 1990s saw a spirited, albeit belated, counterattack by scientists to defend the role of science in society, resulting in what some authors have referred to as the Science Wars (Gross & Levitt, 1994; Gross et al., 1996; Park, 2000; Shermer, 1997; Sokal & Bricmont, 1998).

Paul Thagard (1988). Computational philosophy of science. MIT Press. isbn 0262700484 info, Chapter 2: pdf

Ch. 9 on pseudoscience. Resemblance thinking: isn’t situationism a form of that resemblance thinking?

• Pseudo-science

  • Uses resemblance thinking (e.g., Mars is red, red is the color of blood, therefore Mars rules war and anger)
  • Neglects empirical matters
  • Practitioners oblivious to alternative theories
  • Nonsimple theories: many ad hoc hypotheses
  • Stagnant in doctrine and applications

  p. 170

To English readers: my priority is to write in English. Sometimes, however, it is better fo formulate fresh ideas in one’s mother tongue, to come back later and translate them. Sorry for this ;-) Anyhow, most of the available literature is in English.

My goal is to find demarcations between science and pseudo-science. Take ‘pseudo-science’ literally: work that in essence is not scientific whatsoever, yet parades as scientific in almost all relevant aspects: professorates, promotions, academic institutions, academic journals. A lot easier to deconstruct: eduquackery like that of Sir Ken Robinson, Sugata Mitra, etcetera. In between the devastating work by institutions such as OECD’s educational operations (PISA etcetera), think tanks, testing industries; in short: organisations that have a stake in money, fame, or simply to prolong their existence.

Examples of pseudo-science: the writings of Hans Freudenthal on math education, such as his China lectures (annotations here).

On Google Scholar:

Sven Ove Hansson (2008; revised 2014). Science and Pseudo-Science. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy webpagina

A fine start for the journey. Rich list of references.

Imre Lakatos (1973/1978). Science and pseudoscience. In John Worrall & Gregory Currie (Eds.) (1978/1980). Imre Lakatos. The methodology of scientific research programmes. Philosophical papers Volume 1 (1-7). Cambridge University Press. isbn 0521280311 pdf

De volgende bijdrage in het boek is van Paul Thagard: Why astrology is a pseudoscience

Stephen A. McKnight (Ed.) (1992). Science, pseudo-science, and utopianism in early modern thought. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. isbn 0826208355 reviewed

Brengt pseudoscience in verband met utopean attitudes. Dat is behulpzaam, want dat brengt ons bijvoorbeeld bij werk van Hans Achterhuis, zeker ook dat over de ideologie of nepwetenschap van de vrije markt.

• o.a.:
• David Walsh: A mythology of reason: the persistence of pseudo-science in the modern world 141-166.
• Wilbur Applebaum: Epistemological and political implications of the scientific revolution 167-202

Hans Achterhuis (2010). De utopie van de vrije markt. Lemniscaat. isbn 9789047702573 info

Achterhuis is niet alleen van belang voor die in het neoliberalisme zo zichtbare band tussen nepwetenschap en utopie: het neoliberalisme heeft evident ook een enorme invloed op tal van huidige onderwijsideologieën: ontwikkeling individuele talenten, op het individu gericht onderwijs, de leerling die zijn eigen leren bepaalt (‘het nieuwe leren’), ondernemers onbelemmerd invloed op het onderwijs geven (ict-industrie; toetsfabrikanten; werkgevers).

Ben Wilbrink & Marco Roos (1991). Strategic science policy and organizational structures in the engineering sciences. ARHO/AWT. EAIR European Association for Institutional Research, 13th international forum 1st-4th September 1991, Napier Polytechnic, Edinburgh Scotland. Proceedings 'Managing the higher education environment' p. 347-360.

Waarom deze verwijzing? Er zit een interessante spanning in de thematiek van disciplinariteit in de wetenschappen: de discipline ‘disciplineert’ en bewaakt zodoende de kwaliteit van de wetenschapsbeoefening, maar tegelijkertijd loopt de discipline het risico het contact met andere disciplines te verwaarlozen en zodoende van de wetenschap af te dwalen. Het omgekeerde kan dus eveneens gebeuren: dat maatschappelijke/ideologische groeperingen academische status zoeken en verwerven, maar een sectarisch Fremdkörper binnen de wereldwijde academische gemeenschap blijven — een pseudo-wetenschap.

Dominique Lecourt (1976/1977). Proletarian science? The case of Lysenko. NLB. isbn 902308696 (Introduction by Louis Althusser) pdf

Gert Biesta (2010). Why ‘What Works’ Still Won’t Work: From Evidence-Based Education to Value-Based Education. Stud Philos Educ (2010) 29:491-503 DOI 10.1007/s11217-010-9191-x

René van Hezewijk (8 januari 2015). Data zijn geen kennis. Afscheidscollege pdf

Schitterend college. Wat is het om wetenschappelijk te redeneren? Of zoiets. Hommage aan de Poppers en de Linschotens van de academische wereld. Tegengif voor de nepwetenschap.

Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr, Derek J. Koehler & Jonathan A. Fugelsang (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549-563. pdf

Marsha P. Hanen, Margaret J. Olser, Robert G. Weyant. Science, Pseudo-science, and Society no access; Reviewed by Roy Wallis Social Studies of Science, 12 477-480

A. A. Derksen (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24, 17-42. preview

Frank Cioffi (1975). Freud and the idea of a pseudo-science. In Robert Borger & Frank Cioffi (1975). Explanation in the behavioral sciences (471-499, + comment & reply 500-515). Cambridge University Press. isbn 0521099056

More recent position of Cioffi in Pigliucci & Boudry 2014

David L. Hull (1988). Science as a process. An evolutionary account of the social and conceptual development of science. The University of Chicago Press. isbn 0226360504 info

Tom Cahill (Nov 15, 2015). How These 5 Famous Billionaires Are Dismantling Black Public Schools. blog

Brand of pseudo-science being promoted by US billionaires (the big school robbery) via @drvcourt via @DianeRavitch

Harry Frankfurt (2005). On bullshit. pdf

Benjamin Riley (Feb 19, 2016). Driving out the snake oil in education. Deans for Impact blog via @AceThatTest

Maria Popova (not dated). The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking. page

Atul Gawande (June 10, 2016). The mistruct of science. The New Yorker page

• You have to be able to recognize the difference between claims of science and those of pseudoscience.

Yana Weinstein (Sept 14, 2016). How do you know which study tips to pass on to your students? Put your trust in science. TES download

Daniel T. Willingham (2012). When can you trust the experts? How to tell good science from bad in education. Jossey-Bass. isbn 9781118130278 info

Gordon Pennycook, James Allan Cheyne, Nathaniel Barr & Derek J. Koehler, Jonathan A. Fugelsang (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 10, No. 6, November 2015, pp. 549–563

Hard and Soft Obscurantism in the Humanities and Social Sciences Jon Elster (2012). pdf

Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Linn & Jeffrey M. Lohr (Eds.) (2004). Science and pseudoscience in clinical psychology. The Guilford Press. 1593850700 info on 2014 edition

• • among others:
    • Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Initial Thoughts, Reflections, and Considerations, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, & Jeffrey M. Lohr
    • Understanding Why Some Clinicians Use Pseudoscientific Methods: Findings from Research on Clinical Judgment, Howard N. Garb & Patricia A. Boyle
    • Controversial and Questionable Assessment Techniques, John Hunsley, Catherine M. Lee, James M. Wood, & Whitney Taylor
    • The Science and Pseudoscience of Expert Testimony, Joseph T. McCann, Steven Jay Lynn, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Kelley L. Shindler, & Tammy R. Hammond
    • Dissociative Identity Disorder: A Contemporary Scientific Perspective, Scott O. Lilienfeld & Steven Jay Lynn
    • The Remembrance of Things Past: Problematic Memory Recovery Techniques in Psychotherapy, Steven Jay Lynn, Elisa Krackow, Elizabeth F. Loftus, Timothy G. Locke, & Scott O. Lilienfeld
    • Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology: Concluding Thoughts and Constructive Remedies, Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, & Jeffrey M. Lohr

Pigliucci, Massimo; Boudry, Maarten; and more (2014). Philosophy of Pseudoscience University of Chicago Press [KB eBook] info

• Introduction Why the Demarcation Problem Matters Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry

  1. The Demarcation Problem: A (Belated) Response to Laudan: Massimo Pigliucci
  2. Science and Pseudoscience: How to Demarcate after the (Alleged) Demise of the Demarcation Problem? : Martin Mahner
  3. Toward a Demarcation of Science from Pseudoscience: James Ladyman
  4. Defining Pseudoscience and Science: Sven Ove Hansson
  5. Loki’s Wager and Laudan’s Error: On Genuine and Territorial Demarcation: Maarten Boudry
  6. The Problem of Demarcation: History and Future: Thomas Nickles
  7. Science, Pseudoscience, and Science Falsely So-Called: Daniel P. Thurs and Ronald L. Numbers
  8. Paranormalism and Pseudoscience as Deviance: Erich Goode
  9. Belief Buddies versus Critical Communities: The Social Organization of Pseudoscience: Noretta Koertge
  10. Science and the Messy, Uncontrollable World of Nature: Carol E. Cleland and Sheralee Brindell
  11. Science and Pseudoscience: The Difference in Practice and the Difference It Makes: Michael Shermer
  12. Evolution: From Pseudoscience to Popular Science, from Popular Science to Professional Science: Michael Ruse
  13. Is a Science of the Supernatural Possible? : Evan Fales
  14. Navigating the Landscape between Science and Religious Pseudoscience: Can Hume Help?: Barbara Forrest
  15. Argumentation and Pseudoscience: The Case for an Ethics of Argumentation: Jean Paul Van Bendegem
  16. Why Alternative Medicine Can Be Scientifically Evaluated: Countering the Evasions of Pseudoscience: Jesper Jerkert
  17. Pseudoscience: The Case of Freud’s Sexual Etiology of the Neuroses: Frank Cioffi
  18. The Holocaust Denier’s Playbook and the Tobacco Smokescreen: Common Threads in the Thinking and Tactics of Denialists and Pseudoscientists: Donald Prothero
  19. Evolved to Be Irrational? Evolutionary and Cognitive Foundations of Pseudosciences: Stefaan Blancke and Johan De Smedt
  20. Werewolves in Scientists’ Clothing: Understanding Pseudoscientific Cognition: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski
  21. The Salem Region: Two Mindsets about Science: John S. Wilkins
  22. Pseudoscience and Idiosyncratic Theories of Rational Belief: Nicholas Shackel
  23. Agentive Thinking and Illusions of Understanding: Filip Buekens

Lack, Caleb W., PhD; Rousseau, Jacques, MA (2016). Critical Thinking, Science, and Pseudoscience. Why we can’t trust our brains Springer Publishing Company 2016 [KB eBook]

Gregory J. Feist (2006). The psychology of science and the origins of the scientific mind. Yale University Press. isbn 030011074X

• Ch. 10: Science, pseudoscience, and antiscience 218-235

Journal: Science & Pseudo-Scieces http://www.pseudo-sciences.org/

Maarten Boudry & Filip A. Buekens (2011). The Epistemic Predicament of a Pseudoscience: Social Constructivism Confronts Freudian Psychoanalysis. researchgate

Susan Haack (2003). Defending science - within reason. Between scientism and cynicism. Prometheus Books. 1591021170

Jansen, A. (1963). Toetsing van grafologische uitspraken. Een experimentele studie. Proefschrift Universiteit van Amsterdam, promotor A. D. de Groot, met stellingen. 278 pp. softcover. text unmarked and unread. (Werkgroep Grafologie) A translated and adapted version is A. Jansen, Validation of Graphological Judgments: An Experimental Study (The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1973, aanwezig: KB,VU, UvA, Utrecht, Groningen,Cambridge) #pseudoscience

M. D. Dunnette (1966). Fads, fashions, and folderol in psychology. American Psychologist, 21, 343-352.

A Decade in the Paranoid World of US Education Research, Part 1: The Scoldings. by Richard P. Phelps. open

Tal Yarkoni (2019). The generalizability crisis. PsyArXiv Preprints preprint

Dan Katz (David Sumpter translation) (2020). How Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our timeblog

Nadia M. Brashier and Elizabeth J. Marsh (2020). Judging Truth. Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 71, pp. 499–515 free

'Epistemic trespassing', essay by N. Ballantyne (2018) in Mind. open access

• Typically an issue in many discussions on Twitter. And in debates on university admissions. 'Schoenmaker blijf bij uw leest' - 'Cobbler, stick to your last'

Valery N. Soyfer (1994). Lysenko and the tragedy of Soviet science. Rutgers University Press. isbn 0813520878

Eigenlijk moet ik deze verhandeling over nepwetenschap dus houden.

Martin Curd & J. A. Cover (Eds) (2001). Philosophy of science. The central issues. Norton. isbn 0393971759 info and/or Table of contents

• 1. I. Science and Pseudoscience
     Introduction
     • Karl Popper—"Science: Conjectures and Refutations" 33-39
     • Thomas S. Kuhn—"Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?" 1970 (Lakatos & Musgrave)
     • Imre Lakatos—"Science and Pseudoscience" (radio lecture 1973 / philoophicalpapers)
     • Paul R. Thagard—"Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience" (1978, Asquith & Hacking)
     • Michael Ruse—"Creation-Science is Not Science" (1982, Science, Technology , and Human Values)
     • Larry Laudan—"Commentary: Science at the Bar"" (1982, Science, Technology , and Human Values) Michael Ruse—"Response to the Commentary: Pro Judice" " (1982, Science, Technology , and Human Values)
     • Commentary

  http://www.benwilbrink.nl/projecten/pseudoscience.htm