Abstract
An immunizing strategy is an argument brought forward in support of a belief system, though independent from that belief system, which makes it more or less invulnerable to rational argumentation and/or empirical evidence. By contrast, an epistemic defense mechanism is defined as a structural feature of a belief system which has the same effect of deflecting arguments and evidence. We discuss the remarkable recurrence of certain patterns of immunizing strategies and defense mechanisms in pseudoscience and other belief systems. Five different types will be distinguished and analyzed, with examples drawn from widely different domains. The difference between immunizing strategies and defense mechanisms is analyzed, and their epistemological status is discussed. Our classification sheds new light on the various ways in which belief systems may achieve invulnerability against empirical evidence and rational criticism, and we propose our analysis as part of an explanation of these belief systems’ enduring appeal and tenacity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We are aware that our conception of theoretical ‘immunization’ does not completely accord with the mechanisms of active immunization in medicine (vaccination), in which microbes are introduced in the body so as to enable its natural immune system to produce antibodies. The analogy is restricted to the fact that something from outside the system gets introduced as a means of protection, but the type of mechanism is, of course, very different.
It is a well-known psychological finding that people have difficulties assessing the ambiguity of statements once they have found a specific interpretation. For example, people will rate the results of a bogus personality test as an accurate description of themselves, even if these results contain only vague and ambiguous claims that are applicable to virtually anyone, a phenomenon that is known as the Barnum effect or Forer effect.
For an analogy between conspiracy thinking and Freudian psychoanalysis from an epistemological perspective, see (Boudry and Buekens, The Epistemic Predicament of a Pseudoscience: Social Constructivism Confronts Freudian Psychoanalysis, under review)
It is not even clear that ‘we’ concocted those arguments rather than a mental entity that is independent from ‘us’, which is precisely what caused Wittgenstein to remark that Freud had made an “abominable mess” of the reasons and causes of our behavior.
According to Popper (2002), in contrast with Freudian psychoanalysis, Marx’s initial theory was predictive and not without scientific merits, and it degenerated into pseudoscience only when some of his defenders resorted to ad hoc revisions and immunizing tactics.
Ron L. Hubbard wrote: “Don’t ever defend. Always attack. Find or manufacture enough threat against them to cause them to sue for peace. Originate a black PR campaign to destroy the person’s repute and to discredit them so thoroughly they will be ostracized....” (Foster 1971)
The E-meter is an instrument used by Scientologists to measure stress and detect ‘engrams’.
The problem is also similar to the Mannheim paradox: if all discourse is ideological, how is it possible to have non-ideological discourse about ideology?
References
Behe, M. J. (2006). Darwin’s black box: The biochemical challenge to evolution (10th Anniversary Edition). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Beloff, J. (1994). Lessons of history. The Journal of the American Society for Psychical Research, 88(7), 7–22.
Benassi, V. A., Singer, B., et al. (1980). Occult belief: Seeing is believing. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 19(4), 337–349.
Bonewitz, I. (1989). Real Magic. York Beach (Maine), Samuel Weiser.
Boyer, P. (1994). The naturalness of religious ideas: A cognitive theory of religion. Berkeley: University of California press.
Cioffi, F. (1998). Freud and the question of pseudoscience. Chicago: Open Court.
Clarke, S. (2002). Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32(2), 131.
Crews, F. C. (1986). Skeptical engagements. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudo-science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24(1), 17–42.
Esterson, A. (1993). Seductive mirage: An exploration of the work of Sigmund Freud. Chicago: Open Court.
Foster, J. G. (1971). Enquiry into the practice and effects of scientology. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Freud, S. (1924). Collected papers, vol. 2. London: The Hogarth Press.
Freud, S. (1957). The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud. Vol. 11, (1910): Five lectures on psycho-analysis, Leonardo da Vinci, and other works. London: The Hogarth Press.
Fusfield, W. D. (1993). Some Pseudoscientific Features of Transcendental-Pragmatic Grounding Projects. H. Albert and K. Salamun. Amsterdam-Atlanta, Mensch und Gesellschaft aus der Sicht des kritischen Rationalismus.
Gellner, E. (1985). The psychoanalytic movement: The cunning of unreason. London: Paladin.
Gilovich, T. (1991). How we know what isn’t so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York: Free press.
Gordon, J. S. (1996). Manifesto for a new medicine. Reading: Addison-Wesley.
Gosse, P. H. (1857). Omphalos: An attempt to untie the geological knot. London: J. Van Voorst.
Gregory, R. L. (1997). Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 352(1358), 1121.
Grünbaum, A. (1979). Is Freudian psychoanalytic theory pseudo-scientific by Karl Popper’s criterion of demarcation? American Philosophical Quarterly, 16(2), 131–141.
Grünbaum, A. (2008). Popper’s fundamental misdiagnosis of the scientific defects of Freudian psychoanalysis and of their bearing on the theory of demarcation. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 25(4), 574–589.
Guttentag, O. E. (1940). Trends toward homeopathy: Present and past. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 8, 1172–1193.
Hines, T. (2003). Pseudoscience and the paranormal (2nd ed.). Amherst: Prometheus Books.
Humphrey, N. (1996). Soul searching: Human nature and supernatural belief. London: Vintage.
Jacobs, D. M. (1998). The threat: The secret agenda: What the aliens really want ... and how they plan to get it. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Keeley, B. L. (1999). Of conspiracy theories. The Journal of Philosophy, 96(3), 109–126.
Kennedy, J. E. (2001). Why is psi so elusive? A review and proposed model. The Journal of Parapsychology, 65(3), 219–246.
Kennedy, J. E. (2003). The capricious, actively evasive, unsustainable nature of Psi: A summary and hypotheses. The Journal of Parapsychology, 67(1), 53–75.
Kukla, A. (2000). Social constructivism and the philosophy of science. New York: Routledge.
Lakatos, I. (1968). Criticism and the methodology of scientific research programmes. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 69, 149–186.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge 700 University Press.
Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy, and psychoanalysis: Essays in honor of Adolf Grünbaum (pp. 111–128). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Mack, J. E. (1995). Abduction: Human encounters with aliens. London: Simon and Schuster.
Mackay, C. (1974 [1841]). Extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. New York: Barnes & Noble Publishing.
Marks, D. (2000). The psychology of the psychic. Amherst: Prometheus books.
Morris, H. M. (1963). Twilight of evolution. Grand Rapids: Baker Pub Group.
Park, R. L. (2002). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perakh, M. (2004). Unintelligent design. Amherst: Prometheus books.
Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge.
Randi, J. (1981). Selective test selection. Skeptical Inquirer, 5, 12–13.
Shackel, N. (2005). The vacuity of postmodern methodology. Metaphilosophy, 36(3), 295–320.
Sheldrake, R. (1995). Seven experiments that could change the world: A do-it-yourself guide to revolutionary science. New York: Putnam Publishing Group.
Shermer, M. (2002). Why people believe weird things: Pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: A.W.H. Freeman/Owl Book.
Williams, R. J. (1980). Biochemical individuality. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Wiseman, R. (2010). Heads i win, tails you lose. How parapsychologists nullify null results. Skeptical Inquirer, 34(1), 36–39.
Zuefle, D. M. (1999). Tracking bigfoot on the internet. Skeptical Inquirer, 23, 26–29.
Zygmunt, J. F. (1970). Prophetic failure and chiliastic identity: The case of Jehovah’s Witnesses. The American Journal of Sociology, 75(6), 926–948.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Stefaan Blancke, Filip Buekens and Massimo Pigliucci for stimulating discussions and comments, and the anonymous referees of Philosophia for valuable suggestions. This paper was presented at the Fourth Conference of the Dutch-Flemish Association for Analytic Philosophy at the Catholic University of Leuven (2010).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boudry, M., Braeckman, J. Immunizing Strategies and Epistemic Defense Mechanisms. Philosophia 39, 145–161 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-010-9254-9
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-010-9254-9