Knowledge: Genuine and Bogus

  • Mario Bunge
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 287)


It has been said that humans can fake anything, even altruism and love, as well as science and philosophy. Some theories and practices can be recognized at first sight as being bogus and unrecyclable. This is the case of palmistry, homeopathy, and creation “science.” Others demand plowing through esoteric texts. This is the case of phenomenology, which its founder, Edmund Husserl (1960), launched as a “rigorous science,” yet at the same time as “the polar opposite” of science proper. Phenomenologists claim to be able to know anything instantaneously, apodictically, and exclusively through introspection – by pretending that the external world does not exist, instead of assuming it and exploring it. And, since they reject the scientific method, they do not feel obliged to offer any evidence for their claims. But, since phenomenologists have never produced anything other than phenomenology itself, why should we feel compelled to believe the claim that theirs is a rigorous science?


Scientific Method Evolutionary Psychology Inductive Logic Rigorous Science Angry Face 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barkow, Jerome H., Leda Cosmides, and John Tooby, eds. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barrow, John D., Paul C. W. Davies, and Charles L. Harper, Jr., eds. 2004. Science and ultimate reality: Quantum theory, cosmology, and complexity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Gintis, Herbert, Samuel Bowles, Robert Boyd, and Ernst Fehr, eds. 2005. Moral sentiments and material interests: The foundations of cooperation in economic life. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Morris, J. S., A. öhman, and R. J. Dolan. 1998. Conscious and unconscious emotional learning in the human amygdala. Nature 393: 467–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Savage, J. L. 1954. The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Vaughan, Susan C., Randall D. Marshall, Roger A. McKinnon, Roger Vaughan, Lisa Mellman, and Steven P. Roose. 2000. Can we do psychoanalytic outcome research? A feasibiliy study. International Journal of Psychoanalysis 81: 513–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Husserl, Edmund. 1960 [1931]. Cartesian meditations: An introduction to phenomenology. The Hague: M. Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  8. –––––. 1973. The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Barraclough, Geoffrey. 1979. Main trends in history. New York and London: Holmes & Meier.Google Scholar
  10. Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A history of archaeological thought, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Panasiuk, Ryszard, and Leszek Nowak, eds. 1998. Marx’s theories today. Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  12. Frazier, Kendrick, ed. 2009. Science under siege: Defending science, exposing pseudoscience. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  13. Gardner, Martin. 1983. Science: Good, bad, and bogus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Kurtz, Paul. 2001. Skeptical odysseys. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  15. –––––. 2007c. Demarcating science from pseudoscience. In Handbook of the philosophy of science: General philosophy of science – Focal issue, ed. T. Kuipers, 515–75. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  16. Park, Robert L. 2008. Superstition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Wolpert, Lewis. 1992. The unnatural nature of science. London: Faber & Faber.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, Ernest. 1961. The life and work of Sigmund Freud, ed. and Abridged by L. Trillling and S. Marcus. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Friedman, Milton. 1991. Old wine in new bottles. Economic Journal 101: 33–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Suppes, Patrick. 1957. Introduction to logic. Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
  21. Kandel, Eric, 2006. In search of memory: The emergence of a new science of mind. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
  22. Shorter, Edward. 1997. A history of psychiatry. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Kurtz, Paul, ed. 1985. A skeptic’s handbook of parapsychology. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  24. Randi, James. 1982. Flim-Flam! Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  25. Buss, David M. (2004). Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind, 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  26. –––––. 2003. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  27. Cochran, Gregory, and Thomas Harpending. 2009. The 10,000 year explosion: How civilization accelerated human evolution. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  28. Preston, Stephanie D., and Frans B. M. de Waal. 2002. Empathy: its ultimate and proximate bases. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25: 1–71.Google Scholar
  29. Barkow, Jerome H. 2006. Introduction: Sometimes the bus does wait. In Missing the revolution: Darwinism for social scientists, 3–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Buller, David J. 2005. Adapting minds: Evolutionary psychology and the persistent quest for human nature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lloyd, Elisabeth. 1999. Evolutionary psychology: The burdens of proof. Biology and Philosophy 14: 211–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smail, Daniel Lord. 2008. On deep history and the brain. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  33. Flew, Antony, ed. 1987. Readings in the philosophical problems of parapsychology. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
  34. Smolin, Lee. 2006. The trouble with physics: The rise of string theory, the fall of science, and what comes next. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  35. Wilkinson, Richard, and Kate Pickett. 2009. The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  36. Cornwell, John. 2003. Hitler’s scientists: Science, war, and the devil’s pact. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  37. Schwartz, Charlie, et al. 1972. Science against the people: The story of Jason.
  38. Stonor Saunders, Frances. 2000. Who paid the pipers?: The CIA and the cultural cold war. London: Granta Books.Google Scholar
  39. Stove, David. 1991. The plato cult and other philosophical follies. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Graham, Loren R. 1981. Between science and values. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dept. of PhilosophyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations