Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Feng Shui as Pseudoscience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feng Shui: Teaching About Science and Pseudoscience

Part of the book series: Science: Philosophy, History and Education ((SPHE))

Abstract

Given the extent of feng shui belief, and the personal, social, cultural, and economic impact that it has, everyone can benefit from judging its scientificity. Efforts to distinguish science from non-science, the original ‘demarcation problem’, have been pursued since at least David Hume’s assertion of empirical confirmation as the differentia. Karl Popper proposed a new demarcation of science from non-science, namely, falsificationism. The mushrooming, internationalizing, billion-dollar feng shui industry, and its related alternative or holistic medicine industry, is an example of the ethical, political, and cultural consequences of failing to identify pseudoscience or saying that such identification is impossible. Carl Hempel usefully offered a list of seven desiderata that identified good scientific theories and which can serve in characterizing good scientific practice. Larry Laudan claimed that the demarcation quest was hopelessly and in-principle contentious. Although many philosophers concurred with Laudan’s arguments, not all did so. The feng shui movement is sectarian, and it is a mark of pseudoscience that these sectarian differences cannot be settled. Science always occurs in a social-economic-technological context which has its own conceptual and philosophical characteristics that can be listed as five couples, or a conceptual pentagon: humanism/commercialism; systemism/compartmentalism; materialism/spiritualism; realism/subjectivism; and scientism/irrationalism. For any society, to the degree that the first member of the couples is maximized, then science can flourish. To the degree that the second member is elevated, then the society allows and promotes the growth of pseudosciences. Contemporary USA provides a case study for this claim.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is an enormous amount of philosophical discussion on the ‘demarcation problem’. See at least Bunge (2001, Chap. 8), Butts (1993), Hansson (2009, 2013), Mahner (2007, 2013), McIntyre (2019), Nickles (2013), Pigliucci (2013), and Shermer (2013).

  2. 2.

    On the scientific research of the tobacco industry, see Brandt (2007) and Oreskes and Conway (2010).

  3. 3.

    Mach’s seemingly antediluvian position can be defended by saying he forsook committed belief in the then current ‘plum pudding’ picture of the atom that had been advanced by J.J. Thompson. This is an issue for Machian scholarship.

  4. 4.

    First English translation in 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Popper 1934/1959).

  5. 5.

    For an outline of the arguments and literature, see especially Ladyman (2002, Chap. 3) and Nickles (2013).

  6. 6.

    See Bunge (1991a, 2001, Chap. 8) who develops these points.

  7. 7.

    For scholarly and tightly argued refutation of this historicist programme, see Wootton’s The Invention of Science (Wootton 2015). The book is reviewed in Matthews (2017).

  8. 8.

    For critiques of the strong programme, see, among many, Brown (2001), Bunge (1991b, 1992), Nola (1991, 2000), and Slezak (1994a, b).

  9. 9.

    See at least Bunge (1991a, 2001, Chap. 8), Butts (1993), Derksen (1993), Ladyman (2013), Mahner (2007, 2013), Pennock (2011), Pigliucci (2010, 2013), Shermer (2013), most of the 23 contributions to Pigliucci and Boudry (2013), and contributors to Boudry and Pigliucci (2017).

  10. 10.

    See http://www.yunlintemple.org/home

  11. 11.

    See http://www.yunlintemple.org/home

  12. 12.

    See https://www.fengshuitoday.com/feng-shui-of-the-hsbc-headquarters-building-in-hong-kong/

  13. 13.

    See https://redlotusletter.com/classical-feng-shui-and-western-black-feng-shui-the-6-critical-differences-confessions-of-a-former-black-hat-practitioner/

  14. 14.

    See Engelhardt and Caplan (1987), Hellman (1998), and Machamer et al. (2000).

  15. 15.

    On this see contributions to Irzik (2013).

  16. 16.

    Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland (2017) provides extensive, if depressing, documentation of the 500-year history of what counts as spiritualism in the USA. Parts of the Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions do their best to separate themselves from this spiritualism which they see as commercialized, corrupt, and theologically ill-informed.

  17. 17.

    Apart from numerous books, the Robert Greenwald documentary The High Cost of Low Price (2005) well captures the Walmarted experience of the USA.

  18. 18.

    David Stove provides a nice, informed, and witty introduction to how irrationalism took root in contemporary philosophy of science (Stove 1982).

  19. 19.

    On the inroads, if not capture, of universities by irrationalism, see Bunge (1994, 1996); and contributions to Gross, Levitt, and Lewis (1996), Koertge (1998), and Kurtz and Madigan (1994). Latour now regrets the irrationalist wave his earlier writing unleashed on the academy (Latour 2004).

  20. 20.

    A good and informed account of the attack on truth in both the academy and society is Respecting Truth by philosopher and social scientist Lee McIntyre (2015).

References

  • Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinfield, H., & Korngold, E. (1991). Between heaven and earth: A guide to Chinese medicine. New York: Random House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackmore, J. T. (1989). Ernst Mach leaves “The Church of Physics”. British Journal for Philosophy of Science, 40, 519–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor, D. (1976/1991). Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul (Second edition, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, M. (2017). Plus ultra: Why science does not have limits. In M. Boudry & M. Pigliucci (Eds.), Science unlimited? The challenges of scientism (pp. 31–52). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Boudry, M., & Pigliucci, M. (Eds.). (2017). Science unlimited? The challenges of scientism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, A. (2007). The cigarette century: The rise, fall, and deadly persistence of the product that defined America. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. R. (2001). Who rules in science: An opinionated guide to the science wars. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1967/1998). Scientific research 1, the search for system. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1991a). What is science? Does it matter to distinguish it from pseudoscience? New Ideas in Psychology, 9, 245–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1991b). A critical examination of the new sociology of science: Part 1. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 21(4), 524–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1992). A critical examination of the new sociology of science: Part 2. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 22(1), 46–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1994). Counter-enlightenment in contemporary social studies. In P. Kurtz & T. J. Madigan (Eds.), Challenges to the enlightenment: In defense of reason and science (pp. 25–42). Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (1996). In praise of intolerance to charlatanism in academia. In P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 96–115). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (2001). Philosophy in crisis: The need for reconstruction. Amherst: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (2006). Chasing reality: Strife over realism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bunge, M. (2012a). Evaluating philosophies (Boston studies in the philosophy of science) (Vol. 295). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Butts, R. E. (1993). Sciences and pseudosciences: An attempt at a new form of demarcation. In J. Earman, A. I. Janis, G. J. Massey, & N. Rescher (Eds.), Philosophical problems of the internal and external worlds: Essays on the philosophy of Adolf Grünbaum (pp. 163–185). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R. (1980). Deploying “pseudoscience”: Then and now. In M. P. Hanen, M. J. Osler, & R. G. Weyant (Eds.), Science, pseudoscience and society (pp. 237–272). Calgary: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooter, R. (1982). The conservatism of “pseudoscience”. In P. Grim (Ed.), Philosophy of science and the occult (pp. 130–143). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crump, T. (2001). A brief history of science: As seen through the development of scientific instruments. London: Robinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derksen, A. A. (1993). The seven sins of pseudoscience. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 24, 17–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R. (1988). A constructivist approach to curriculum development. In P. Fensham (Ed.), Development and dilemmas in science education (pp. 133–149). New York: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelhardt, H. T., & Caplan, A. L. (Eds.). (1987). Scientific controversies: Case studies in the resolution and closure of disputes in science and technology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, M. D. (2012). The pseudoscience wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the birth of the modern fringe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1997). Nonoverlapping magisteria. Natural History, 106, 16–22. Reprinted in R. Pennock (ed.), Intelligent design creationism and its critics: Philosophical, theological, and scientific perspectives. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2001, 737–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, P. R., Levitt, N., & Lewis, M. W. (Eds.). (1996). The flight from science and reason. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, (distributed by Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, P. (2001). The Zangshu, or book of burial (S. Field, Trans.). web source. (original ≈ 300bc).

    Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 23, 237–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2013). Defining pseudoscience and science. In M. Pigliccci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 61–77). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hellman, H. (1998). Great feuds in science. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hempel, C. G. (1983). Valuation and objectivity in science. In R. S. Cohen & L. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis: Essays in honor of Adolf Grünbaum (pp. 111–127). Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobson, A. (2019). A realist analysis of six controversial quantum issues. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Mario Bunge: A centenary festschrift. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2008). Systematicity: The nature of science. Philosophia, 36, 167–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2013). Systematicity: The nature of science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huizenga, J. (1992). Cold fusion: The scientific fiasco of the century. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (1777/1902). In L. A. Selby-Bigge (Ed.), Enquiries concerning the human understanding and concerning the principles of morals. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hwangbo, A. B. (1999). A new millennium and feng shui. The Journal of Architecture, 4(2), 191–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G. (Ed.). (2013). Commercialisation and commodification of science: Educational responses. Science & Education, 22(10), 2375–2384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeans, J. (1948). The growth of physical science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koertge, N. (Ed.). (1998). A house built on sand: Exposing postmodern myths about science. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1991/2000). ‘The trouble with historical philosophy of science’, The Robert and Maurine Rothschild lecture, Department of History of Science, Harvard University. In J. Conant & J. Haugeland (Eds.), The road since structure: Thomas S. Kuhn (pp. 105–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, P., & Madigan, T. J. (1994). Challenges to the enlightenment: In defense of reason and science. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Why has critique run out of steam? From matters of fact to matters of concern. Critical Inquiry, 30, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J. (2002). Understanding philosophy of science. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ladyman, J. (2013). Toward a demarcation of science from pseudoscience. In M. Pigluicci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 45–59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1978). Introduction: Science and pseudoscience. In J. Worrall & G. Currie (Eds.), The methodology of scientific research programmes: Volume I (pp. 1–7). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1981). A confutation of convergent realism. Philosophy of Science, 48, 19–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laudan, L. (1983/1996). The demise of the demarcation problem. In L. Laudan (Ed.), Beyond positivism and relativism: Theory, method and evidence (pp. 210–222). Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mach, E. (1910/1992). Sensory elements and scientific concepts. In J. Blackmore (Ed.), Ernst Mach: A deeper look (pp. 118–126). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P., Pera, M., & Baltas, A. (Eds.). (2000). Scientific controversies: Philosophical and historical perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M. (2007). Demarcating science from pseudoscience. In T. Kuipers (Ed.), Handbook of the philosophy of science: General philosophy of science-focal issue (pp. 515–575). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mahner, M. (2013). Science and pseudoscience: How to demarcate after the (alleged) demise of the demarcation problem. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 29–59). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, M. R. (2017). In praise of philosophically-engaged history of science. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 175–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, L. (2015). Respecting truth: Willful ignorance in the internet age. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • McIntyre, L. C. (2019). The scientific attitude: Defending science from denial, fraud, and pseudoscience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mermin, D. N. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. Journal of Philosophy, 78, 397–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1938/1973). Science and the social order. InThe sociology of science (pp. 254–266). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickles, T. (2013). The problem of demarcation: History and future. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 101–120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (1991). Ordinary human inference as refutation of the strong programme. Social Studies of Science, 21, 107–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nola, R. (2000). Saving Kuhn from the sociologists of science. Science & Education, 9(1–2), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orleans, L. A. (Ed.). (1980). Science in contemporary China. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, R. T. (2011). Can’t philosophers tell the difference between science and religion? Demarcation revisited. Synthese, 178(2), 177–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M. (2013). The demarcation problem: A (belated) response to Laudan. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 9–28). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pigliucci, M., & Boudry, M. (Eds.). (2013). Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1934/1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romero, G. (2019). Physics and philosophy of physics in the work of Mario Bunge. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Mario Bunge: A Centenary Festschrift. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruse, M. (Ed.). (1988). But is it science? The philosophical question in the creation/evolution controversy. Albany: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sampson, W. (1996). Antiscience trends in the rise of the “alternative medicine” movement. In P. R. Gross, N. Levitt, & M. W. Lewis (Eds.), The flight from science and reason (pp. 188–197). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shermer, M. (2013). Science and pseudoscience: The difference in practice and the difference it makes. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Philosophy of pseudoscience: Reconsidering the demarcation problem (pp. 203–223). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (1994a). Sociology of science and science education: Part I. Science & Education, 3(3), 265–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slezak, P. (1994b). Sociology of science and science education. Part II: Laboratory life under the microscope. Science & Education, 3(4), 329–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sokal, A. (2009). Beyond the hoax: Science, philosophy and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Staver, J. (1998). Constructivism: Sound theory for explicating the practice of science and science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 501–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stebbing, L. S. (1937/1958). Philosophy and the physicists. New York: Dover Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stove, D. C. (1982). Popper and after: Four modern irrationalists. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wootton, D. (2015). The invention of science: A new history of the scientific revolution. London: Penguin Random House.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Michael R. Matthews

Authors
  1. Michael R. Matthews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Matthews, M.R. (2019). Feng Shui as Pseudoscience. In: Feng Shui: Teaching About Science and Pseudoscience. Science: Philosophy, History and Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18822-1_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18822-1_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-18821-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-18822-1

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation