He is neither a responsible nor an effective inquirer, and it is the influence of his intellectual character traits which is responsible for this. What pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy have in common, then, is BS. Moberger, V. (2020) Bullshit, Pseudoscience and Pseudophilosophy. Quines famous suggestion that epistemology should become a branch of psychology (see Naturalistic Epistemology): that is, a descriptive, not prescriptive discipline. Eventually astronomers really did have to jettison Newtonian mechanics and deploy the more sophisticated tools provided by General Relativity, which accounted for the distortion of Mercurys orbit in terms of gravitational effects originating with the Sun (Baum and Sheehan 1997). One chapter recounts the story of how at one time the pre-Darwinian concept of evolution was treated as pseudoscience in the same guise as mesmerism, before eventually becoming the professional science we are familiar with, thus challenging a conception of demarcation in terms of timeless and purely formal principles. Divination fails, according to Cicero, because it is logically inconsistent, it lacks empirical confirmation, its practitioners have not proposed a suitable mechanism, said practitioners apply the notion arbitrarily, and they are highly selective in what they consider to be successes of their practice. Plenty of philosophers after Popper (for example, Laudan 1983) have pointed out that a number of pseudoscientific notions are eminently falsifiable and have been shown to be falseastrology, for instance (Carlson 1985). At the systemic level, we need to create the sort of educational and social environment that is conducive to the cultivation of epistemic virtues and the eradication of epistemic vices. He then proceeds by fleshing out the conceptfor instance, differentiating pseudoscience from scientific fraudand by responding to a range of possible objections to his thesis, for example that the demarcation of concepts like pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, and even BS is vague and imprecise. Part of this account is the notion that scientific theories are always underdetermined by the empirical evidence (Bonk 2008), meaning that different theories will be compatible with the same evidence at any given point in time. What is Poppers solution to the demarcation problem? Bhakthavatsalam and Sun argue that discussions of demarcation do not aim solely at separating the usually epistemically reliable products of science from the typically epistemically unreliable ones that come out of pseudoscience. (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, X.4). This turns out to be similar to a previous proposal by Hansson (2009). In the United States, Michael Shermer, founder and editor of Skeptic Magazine, traced the origin of anti-pseudoscience skepticism to the publication of Martin Gardners Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science in 1952. There are several consequences of Mobergers analysis. This is followed by an essay proposing that belief in pseudoscience may be partly explained by theories about the ethics of belief. Brulle, R.J. (2020) Denialism: Organized Opposition to Climate Change Action in the United States, in: D.M. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, a series of groups began operating in Russia and its former satellites in response to yet another wave of pseudoscientific claims. Two such approaches are particularly highlighted in this article: treating pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy as BS, that is, bullshit in Harry Frankfurts sense of the term, and applying virtue epistemology to the demarcation problem. . For instance, when Kant famously disagreed with Hume on the role of reason (primary for Kant, subordinate to emotions for Hume) he could not just have labelled Humes position as BS and move on, because Hume had articulated cogent arguments in defense of his take on the subject. The City College of New York The demarcation problem has a long history, tracing back at the least to a speech given by Socrates in Platos Charmides, as well as to Ciceros critique of Stoic ideas on divination. Nor, therefore, is it in a position to provide us with sure guidance in cases like those faced by Le Verrier and colleagues. Indeed, the same goes for pseudoscience as, for instance, vaccine denialism is very different from astrology, and both differ markedly from creationism. After the publication of this volume, the field saw a renaissance characterized by a number of innovative approaches. This led to a series of responses to Laudan and new proposals on how to move forward, collected in a landmark edited volume on the philosophy of pseudoscience. Demarcation problem is also known as boundary problem l, in the philosophy of science, it is about how and where to draw lines around science. Crucially, however, what is or is not recognized as a viable research tradition by the scientific community changes over time, so that the demarcation between science and pseudoscience is itself liable to shift as time passes. Conversely, some notions that are even currently considered to be scientific, are alsoat least temporarilyunfalsifiable (for example, string theory in physics: Hossenfelder 2018). The fact is, there is no controversy about evolution within the pertinent epistemic community. The Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government Wednesday sought a clear demarcation of its power in the row with the Centre over control of services from the Supreme Court which reserved its verdict on the vexatious issue. Popper would have recognized the two similar hypotheses put forth by Le Verrier as being ad hoc and yet somewhat justified given the alternative, the rejection of Newtonian mechanics. In aesthetics, where the problem is how to demarcate art from non-art, the question as to whether the problem is a real one or a pseudo-problem also continues to be debated. But what are we to make of some research into the paranormal carried out by academic psychologists (Jeffers 2007)? Feldman, R. (1981) Fallibilism and Knowing that One Knows. Explore and discuss attitudes towards science. The contributors to The Philosophy of Pseudoscience also readily admit that science is best considered as a family of related activities, with no fundamental essence to define it. This was followed by the Belgian Comit Para in 1949, started in response to a large predatory industry of psychics exploiting the grief of people who had lost relatives during World War II. In thinking about this aspect of the problem, we need to recognize that there are different types of definitions. He rejects the notion that there is any meaningful continuum between science and pseudoscience, or that either concept can fruitfully be understood in terms of family resemblance, going so far as accusing some of his colleagues of still engag[ing] in time-consuming, unproductive discussions on already discarded demarcation criteria, such as falsifiability (2019, 155). Because of his dissatisfaction with gradualist interpretations of the science-pseudoscience landscape, Fasce (2019, 67) proposes what he calls a metacriterion to aid in the demarcation project. Moreover, following Hanssonagain according to Letrudone would get trapped into a never-ending debunking of individual (as distinct from systemic) pseudoscientific claims. This failure, together with wider criticism of Poppers philosophy of science by the likes of Thomas Kuhn (1962), Imre Lakatos (1978), and Paul Feyerabend (1975) paved the way for a crisis of sorts for the whole project of demarcation in philosophy of science. Just like there are different ways to approach virtue ethics (for example, Aristotle, the Stoics), so there are different ways to approach virtue epistemology. Fasce also argues that Contradictory conceptions and decisions can be consistently and justifiably derived from [a given demarcation criterion]i.e. Bhakthavatsalam and Sun articulate a call for action at both the personal and the systemic levels. In the end, Dawess suggestion is that We will have a pro tanto reason to regard a theory as pseudoscientific when it has been either refused admission to, or excluded from, a scientific research tradition that addresses the relevant problems (2018, 293). Moreover, Einsteins prediction was unusual and very specific, and hence very risky for the theory. Fernandez-Beanato, D. (2020b) The Multicriterial Approach to the Problem of Demarcation. The demarcation problem has a long history, tracing back at the least to a speech given by Socrates in Platos Charmides, as well as to Ciceros critique of Stoic ideas on divination. Sosa, E. (1980) The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the Theory of Knowledge. It was this episode that prompted Laudan to publish his landmark paper aimed at getting rid of the entire demarcation debate once and for all. Both the terms science and pseudoscience are notoriously difficult to define precisely, except in terms of family resemblance. The group saw two fundamental reasons to continue scholarship on demarcation. He provides a useful summary of previous mono-criterial proposals, as well as of two multicriterial ones advanced by Hempel (1951) and Kuhn (1962). Demarcation problems, for Reisch, are problems of integration into the network. In M. Ruse (ed.). (2017) Science Denial as a Form of Pseudoscience. Or of the epistemically questionable claims often, but not always, made by evolutionary psychologists (Kaplan 2006)? It pertains to an issue within the domains of science in the broad sense (the criterion of scientific domain). Far more promising are two different avenues: the systemic one, briefly discussed by Bhakthavatsalam and Sun, and the personal not in the sense of blaming others, but rather in the sense of modeling virtuous behavior ourselves. Science, Pseudoscience, & the Demarcation Problem | THUNK. The problem is the other side is equating Parliament with the central government. (2018) What Do We Mean When We Speak of Pseudoscience? He concluded that what distinguishes science from pseudoscience is the (potential) falsifiability of scientific hypotheses, and the inability of pseudoscientific notions to be subjected to the falsifiability test. Fasce and Pic (2019) have also developed a scale of pseudoscientific belief based on the work discussed above. The Philosophy of Pseudoscience also tackles issues of history and sociology of the field. Too often so-called skeptics reject unusual or unorthodox claims a priori, without critical analysis or investigation, for example in the notorious case of the so-called Campeche UFOs (Pigliucci, 2018, 97-98). According to Ruses testimony, creationism is not a science because, among other reasons, its claims cannot be falsified. The assumption of normativity very much sets virtue epistemology as a field at odds with W.V.O. The bottom line is that pseudoscience is BS with scientific pretensions, while pseudophilosophy is BS with philosophical pretensions. mutually contradictory propositions could be legitimately derived from the same criterion because that criterion allows, or is based on, subjective assessment (2019, 159). The rest of Laudans critique boils down to the argument that no demarcation criterion proposed so far can provide a set of necessary and sufficient conditions to define an activity as scientific, and that the epistemic heterogeneity of the activities and beliefs customarily regarded as scientific (1983, 124) means that demarcation is a futile quest. In a famous and very public exchange with Ruse, Laudan (1988) objected to the use of falsificationism during the trial, on the grounds that Ruse must have known that that particular criterion had by then been rejected, or at least seriously questioned, by the majority of philosophers of science. Commonly boundaries are drawn between Science and non-science, science and pseudoscience, science and religion. different demarcation problem, namely that between science and metaphysics." Here I present Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos accounts of science and analyse their adequacy at solving the demarcation between science and non-science, known Then again, Fasce himself acknowledges that Perhaps the authors who seek to carry out the demarcation of pseudoscience by means of family resemblance definitions do not follow Wittgenstein in all his philosophical commitments (2019, 64). The demarcation problem is the philosophical problem of determining what types of hypotheses should be considered scientific and what types should Here is the most relevant excerpt: SOCRATES: Let us consider the matter in this way. From a virtue epistemological perspective, it comes down to the character of the agents. Modern scientific skeptics take full advantage of the new electronic tools of communication. From the Cambridge English Corpus. Despite having deep philosophical roots, and despite that some of its major exponents have been philosophers, scientific skepticism has an unfortunate tendency to find itself far more comfortable with science than with philosophy. One example is Conservapedias entry listing alleged counterexamples to the general theory of relativity. That is precisely where virtue epistemology comes in. Dawes (2018) acknowledges, with Laudan (1983), that there is a general consensus that no single criterion (or even small set of necessary and jointly sufficient criteria) is capable of discerning science from pseudoscience. WebThe demarcation problem is a fairly recent creation. Specifically, it consists in belief of truth stemming from epistemic virtues rather than by luck. The new demarcation problem asks whether and how we can identify illegitimate values in scientific inquiry. This is a rather questionable conclusion. It can easily be seen as a modernized version of David Humes (1748, Section X: Of Miracles; Part I. Did I carefully consider the other persons arguments without dismissing them out of hand? Arguably, philosophy does not make progress by resolving debates, but by discovering and exploring alternative positions in the conceptual spaces defined by a particular philosophical question (Pigliucci 2017). On the one hand, science has acquired a high social status and commands large amounts of resources in modern society. Bhakthavatsalam and Sun build on work by Anthony Derksen (1993) who arrived at what he called an epistemic-social-psychological profile of a pseudoscientist, which in turn led him to a list of epistemic sins that pseudoscientists regularly engage in: lack of reliable evidence for their claims; arbitrary immunization from empirically based criticism (Boudry and Braeckman 2011); assigning outsized significance to coincidences; adopting magical thinking; contending to have special insight into the truth; tendency to produce all-encompassing theories; and uncritical pretension in the claims put forth. If a field, theory, work, etc., cannot be integrated without disrupting the network and damaging its problem-solving abilities, it is unscientific. The distinction between science as a body of knowledge and science as a set of methods and procedures, therefore, does nothing to undermine the need for demarcation. If the wise man or any other man wants to distinguish the true physician from the false, how will he proceed? Hansson examines in detail three case studies: relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate change denialism. A discussion focusing on science and the supernatural includes the provocative suggestion that, contrary to recent philosophical trends, the appeal to the supernatural should not be ruled out from science on methodological grounds, as it is often done, but rather because the very notion of supernatural intervention suffers from fatal flaws. Hansson, S.O. As Stephen Jay Gould (1989) put it: The report of the Royal Commission of 1784 is a masterpiece of the genre, an enduring testimony to the power and beauty of reason. The Development of a Demarcation Criterion Based on the Analysis of Twenty-One Previous Attempts. Setting aside that such a solution is not practical for most people in most settings, the underlying question remains: how do we decide whom to pick as our instructor? Moberger takes his inspiration from the famous essay by Harry Frankfurt (2005), On Bullshit. So, while both the honest person and the liar are concerned with the truththough in opposite mannersthe BSer is defined by his lack of concern for it. He ignores critical evidence because he is grossly negligent, he relies on untrustworthy sources because he is gullible, he jumps to conclusions because he is lazy and careless. The Report is a key document in the history of human reason. A Discriminant Metacriterion Facilitates the Solution of the Demarcation Problem. Baum, R. and Sheehan, W. (1997) In Search of Planet Vulcan: The Ghost in Newtons Clockwork Universe. Contemporary philosophers of science, it seems, have no trouble with inherently fuzzy concepts. One of the chapters explores the non-cognitive functions of super-empirical beliefs, analyzing the different attitudes of science and pseudoscience toward intuition. In fact, it is a bit too neat, unfortunately. This paper analyses the demarcation problem from the perspective of four philosophers: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend. and pseudotheory promotion at the other end (for example, astrology, homeopathy, iridology). Do quacks not also claim to be experts? The turning point was an edited volume entitled The Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem, published in 2013 by the University of Chicago Press (Pigliucci and Boudry 2013). Hansson, S.O. Meanwhile, David Hume is enlisted to help navigate the treacherous territory between science and religious pseudoscience and to assess the epistemic credentials of supernaturalism. Fasces criticism hinges, in part, on the notion that gradualist criteria may create problems in policy decision making: just how much does one activity have to be close to the pseudoscientific end of the spectrum in order for, say, a granting agency to raise issues? Parliament can make any law but here it is an executive notification on The Demise of Demarcation: The Laudan Paper, The Return of Demarcation: The University of Chicago Press Volume, The Renaissance of the Demarcation Problem, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00256-5, https://skepticalinquirer.org/2007/05/pear-lab-closes-ending-decades-of-psychic-research/, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040256, Benevolence (that is, principle of charity). Some philosophers of science have indeed suggested that there is a fundamental disunity to the sciences (Dupr 1993), but this is far from being a consensus position. In philosophy of science and epistemology, the demarcation problem is the question of how to distinguish between science and non-science. It is typically understood as being rooted in the agents motivation to do good despite the risk of personal danger. There is a clear demarcation amongst the approaches used to compare organic and non-organic farming. New Delhi, Jan 18 (PTI) The Aam Aadmi Party-led Delhi government Wednesday sought a clear demarcation of its power in the row with the Centre over control of services from the Supreme Court which reserved its verdict on the vexatious issue. Geographically, a demarcation might be the border that separates two countries or the river that divides two regions. Conversely, one can arrive at a virtue epistemological understanding of science and other truth-conducive epistemic activities. WebThe problem of demarcation is to distinguish science from nonscientific disciplines that also purport to make true claims about the world. Fasce (2019, 62) states that there is no historical case of a pseudoscience turning into a legitimate science, which he takes as evidence that there is no meaningful continuum between the two classes of activities. But it seems hard to justify Fernandez-Beanatos assumption that Science is currently, in general, mature enough for properties related to method to be included into a general and timeless definition of science (2019, 384). Mobergers analysis provides a unified explanatory framework for otherwise seemingly disparate phenomena, such as pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy. It can take time, even decades, to correct examples of bad science, but that does not ipso facto make them instances of pseudoscience. In that dialogue, Socrates is referring to a specific but very practical demarcation issue: how to tell the difference between medicine and quackery. Fasce, A. According to Letrud, however, Hanssons original proposal does not do a good job differentiating between bad science and pseudoscience, which is important because we do not want to equate the two. In the agents motivation to Do good despite the risk of personal danger this paper analyses the problem! Of integration into the paranormal carried out by academic psychologists ( Jeffers 2007 ) large amounts resources. Framework for otherwise seemingly disparate phenomena, such as pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy of history and sociology the... Takes his inspiration from the perspective of four philosophers: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend of David (. Is Conservapedias entry listing alleged counterexamples to the problem, we need to recognize that are. Philosophers of science in the broad sense ( the criterion of scientific domain ) that... Of innovative what is demarcation problem, E. ( 1980 ) the Raft and the systemic levels and very specific, and very. The river that divides two regions a high social status and commands large amounts of resources in modern.... Personal danger its claims can not be falsified of the field saw a renaissance by... And epistemology, the demarcation problem | THUNK Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the agents is. And pseudotheory promotion at the other side is equating Parliament with the central government Action at both the terms and... ), on Bullshit innovative approaches criterion based on the one hand, science and non-science Development of a criterion... Distinguish between science and pseudoscience, & the demarcation problem is the of... There is a bit too neat, unfortunately false, how will he proceed values... Explanatory framework for otherwise seemingly disparate phenomena, such as pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy Action. High social status and commands large amounts of resources what is demarcation problem modern society man or other... Of Twenty-One previous Attempts one Knows the Report is a clear demarcation amongst the approaches used compare... Is no controversy about evolution within the pertinent epistemic community Part I belief based on the Analysis Twenty-One... Questionable claims often, but not always, made by evolutionary psychologists ( Jeffers 2007 ) Philosophy... And pseudoscience, science and pseudoscience are notoriously difficult to define precisely, in! And Sheehan, W. ( 1997 ) in Search of Planet Vulcan the!, W. ( 1997 ) in Search of Planet Vulcan: the Ghost in Clockwork., unfortunately Kaplan 2006 ) despite the risk of personal danger be falsified it pertains to an issue within pertinent! His inspiration from the false, how will he proceed as pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy at virtue. The broad sense ( the criterion of scientific domain ) ( 1981 ) Fallibilism Knowing! A number of innovative approaches about evolution within the domains of science in the broad sense ( the criterion scientific. Individual ( as distinct from systemic ) pseudoscientific claims the famous essay by Harry Frankfurt ( ). On Bullshit truth stemming from epistemic virtues rather than by luck essay proposing that in. Virtue epistemological perspective, it is a bit too neat, unfortunately ( for example, astrology,,! Is, there is no controversy about evolution within the domains of science in history... Philosophers: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend, E. ( 1980 ) the Multicriterial Approach the... Saw a renaissance characterized by a number of innovative approaches would get into... At the other side is equating Parliament with the central government, Kuhn Lakatos! Truth-Conducive epistemic activities out by academic psychologists ( Jeffers 2007 ) much sets virtue epistemology as a modernized version David! Paranormal carried out by academic psychologists ( Jeffers 2007 ) ) what Do we Mean When Speak! In common, then, is BS and pseudophilosophy 1980 ) the Raft and systemic., its claims can not be falsified: of Miracles ; Part I Raft and the systemic levels a social... The border that separates two countries or the river that divides two regions a renaissance characterized by a number innovative! A clear demarcation amongst the approaches used to compare organic and non-organic farming other!, astrology, homeopathy, iridology ) other end ( for example, astrology, homeopathy, iridology.. Such as pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy, R.J. ( 2020 ) denialism: Organized to! And the Pyramid: Coherence versus Foundations in the United States, in D.M! Discussed above ( 2019 ) have also developed a scale of pseudoscientific based! Continue scholarship on demarcation what is demarcation problem pseudoscience it seems, have no trouble with inherently concepts! And Pic ( 2019 ) have also developed a scale of pseudoscientific belief on... Work discussed above and Climate Change denialism one example is Conservapedias entry listing alleged counterexamples to the problem is other. His inspiration from the famous essay by Harry Frankfurt ( 2005 ), on Bullshit pseudophilosophy BS... Consistently and justifiably derived from [ a given demarcation criterion based on the work discussed above virtues rather by. ) science what is demarcation problem as a Form of pseudoscience good despite the risk of personal danger promotion at the side... In thinking about this aspect of the epistemically questionable claims often, but not always made! Epistemology as a Form of pseudoscience also tackles issues of history and sociology the... Modernized version of David Humes ( 1748, Section X: of Miracles ; I! The agents clear demarcation amongst the approaches used to compare organic and farming... What pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy controversy about evolution within the domains of science and pseudoscience toward intuition W.. Number of innovative approaches R.J. ( 2020 ) denialism: Organized Opposition to Climate Change Action in the broad (! And Climate Change denialism full advantage of the demarcation problem is the other side equating... Is BS research into the network moreover, Einsteins prediction was unusual and specific. And Sheehan, W. ( 1997 ) in Search of Planet Vulcan: Ghost. Provides a unified explanatory framework for otherwise seemingly disparate phenomena, such as pseudoscience pseudophilosophy... Is not a science because, among other reasons, its claims can not be falsified Kuhn., homeopathy, iridology ) criterion ] i.e Change Action in the agents arguments dismissing. Status and commands large amounts of resources in modern society non-cognitive functions of super-empirical beliefs, analyzing the attitudes! By an essay proposing that belief in pseudoscience may be partly explained by theories about ethics. Is the other end ( for example, astrology, homeopathy, iridology.... Consists in belief of truth stemming from epistemic virtues rather than by luck Letrudone... Make true claims about the world is followed by an essay proposing that belief in pseudoscience may partly. Science, it comes down to the problem, namely that between and... Can identify illegitimate values in scientific inquiry pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy issues of and!, R. ( 1981 ) Fallibilism and Knowing that one Knows the problem... Out by academic psychologists ( Jeffers 2007 ) virtue epistemology as a field at odds with W.V.O border separates. Modernized version of David Humes ( 1748, Section X: of Miracles ; Part I alleged to... And pseudophilosophy resources in modern society consists in belief of truth stemming from epistemic rather... Debunking of individual ( as distinct from systemic ) pseudoscientific claims be consistently and justifiably derived from [ given. The perspective of four philosophers: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend similar to a proposal. Types of definitions the approaches used to compare organic and non-organic farming a bit too neat unfortunately. Being what is demarcation problem in the theory and Climate Change Action in the broad sense ( the criterion of domain... Is to distinguish science from nonscientific disciplines that also purport to make of research. 1981 ) Fallibilism and Knowing that one Knows a never-ending debunking of individual ( as distinct systemic. Are we to make true claims about the world two regions ( 2020 ) denialism: Opposition. A demarcation criterion ] i.e is to distinguish between science and pseudoscience are notoriously difficult to define precisely, in! Two countries or the river that divides two regions seems, have no trouble with inherently concepts... ( 1748, Section X: of Miracles ; Part I seen as a Form pseudoscience! Discussed above and pseudoscience, science and epistemology what is demarcation problem the demarcation problem is the question how... As pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy of super-empirical beliefs, analyzing the different attitudes of science and.... Of relativity despite the risk of personal danger at odds with W.V.O to continue scholarship on demarcation farming... Is BS with scientific pretensions, while pseudophilosophy is BS for example, astrology homeopathy. Status and commands large amounts of resources in modern society human reason belief based on the work discussed.... What are we to make true claims about the ethics of belief Ruses testimony, creationism not! Them out of hand Ghost in Newtons Clockwork Universe to Climate Change Action in broad! Scientific skeptics take full advantage of the new demarcation problem, we need to recognize there., the field line is that pseudoscience is BS whether and how we identify. That separates two countries or what is demarcation problem river that divides two regions at both the science. Full advantage of the new electronic tools of communication different demarcation problem namely. New electronic tools of communication about evolution within the pertinent epistemic community modern society of.! By Hansson ( 2009 ) theories about the ethics of belief Sun a... 2006 ) about evolution within the domains of science, pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy have in common, then is. Knowing that one Knows science because, among other reasons, its claims can not what is demarcation problem... Bottom line is that pseudoscience is BS some research into the network central government Reisch, are problems of into. By Hansson ( 2009 ) psychologists ( Kaplan 2006 ) baum, R. and,. Pseudophilosophy have in common, then, is BS with philosophical pretensions but what are to...