300 Thurs and Numbers
Supporters of science also wrote encyclopedic condemnations, most
notably Martin Gardner’s pioneering In the Name of Science (1952), subse-
quently published as Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science, which gathered
a variety of subjects together under the general banner of pseudoscience.
Indeed, universalized depictions of pseudoscience became a convenient
and clearly articulated target for those dedicated to crusading against anti-
science in all its forms. From the 1970s on, CSICOP’s Skeptical Enquirer
proved to be one of the most important locations in which pseudosci-
ence was forged, elaborated on, and stridently denounced. In 1992 a like-
minded organization in Southern California, the Skeptics Society, began
publishing a second major magazine devoted to “promoting science and
critical thinking,” Skeptic, published and edited by the historian of science
Michael Shermer. To focus on medical matters, CSICOP in 1997 helped
to launch The Scientifi c Review of Alternative Medicine and Aberrant Medical
Practices, followed fi ve years later by a sister journal, The Scientifi c Review of
Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unortho-
dox claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work.^68
But pseudoscience did not just provide a nicely packaged enemy; it
also provided an object for more neutral study. As early as 1953 the His-
tory of Science Society proposed adding a section on “Pseudo- Sciences
and Paradoxes (including natural magic, witchcraft, divination, alchemy
and astrology)” to the annual Isis critical bibliography. Later, history and
philosophy of science (HPS) departments featured the study of pseudo-
science. “Another important function of HPS is to differentiate between
science and pseudo- science,” announced the University of Melbourne.
“If HPS is critical of the sciences, it is even more so when dealing with
pseudo- sciences and the claims they put forth to defend themselves.” In
the late 1970s scholarly studies of pseudoscience—by scientists as well as
historians, philosophers, and sociologists of science—began appearing in
increasing numbers.^69 Sociologists of science associated with the so- called
“strong programme” in the sociology of knowledge at the University of
Edinburgh were especially infl uential in encouraging this development.
Among the cardinal tenets of this initiative was impartiality “with respect
to truth and falsity” of scientifi c claims; in other words, the same type
of explanations would be applied to “true and false beliefs” alike. Thus
encouraged, reputable historians of science devoted entire books to such
topics as phrenology, mesmerism, parapsychology, and creationism. By
the early twenty- fi rst century, Michael Shermer was able to bring out a
two- volume encyclopedia of pseudoscience.^70
Despite attempts to situate it in a less negative context, pseudosci-
ence almost always remained a term of denunciation. Still, it did capture