Is It a Good Idea to Cover the Flat Earthers?

4min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

There was a big efflorescence of these things in the early cold war, 19 fifties. You get a whole spate of alternative theories that imagine themselves to be heterodox. And there's a broader question about how much people should be upset by the fact that there are flat arthers or big foot theorists around. But it also has a shape. There's moments when that's a better theory or not. Shakespeare authorship controversies happen at different times a and there's they are always there, but they flare up. And we're definitely corona virus have been a moment when there's been a flare up thers this moment.

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. 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. Shermer and Gordin explore the philosophical and historical attempts to address this problem of demarcation.