Pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy are best understood as types of “Bullshit”—a technical concept where a speaker isn’t interested in whether what they say is true or false, but simply doesn’t care about truth at all.
Unlike a liar, who knows the truth and tries to hide it, or an honest person, who tries to speak what they believe is true, a “bullshitter” operates without regard for accuracy or reality.
Philosopher Victor Moberger’s analysis highlights that the real problem in pseudoscience (such as astrology or creationism, which mimic science) and pseudophilosophy (which takes on philosophical airs in misleading ways) is not just incorrect claims, but bad intellectual habits—what he calls “epistemic malpractice.”
This refers to a failure of “epistemic conscientiousness,” meaning a willingness and ability to be guided by evidence, reasoning, and argument, but choosing not to exercise it.
The focus is shifted from tallying up which specific claims are right or wrong—a task made endless and often unproductive by the sheer number of dubious claims—to understanding the underlying attitude of willful disregard for truth and good reasoning.
Moberger’s approach also recognizes that what counts as pseudoscience changes over time (for example, alchemy used to be considered a science), yet the persistent issue is this activity of BSing itself.
Additionally, even those defending real science or philosophy can commit the same error if they dismiss unusual ideas without thoughtful analysis.
The heart of the issue across both genuine and pseudo knowledge-seeking is whether people genuinely care about truth and responsibly engage with evidence, making carelessness about truth the core vice behind both pseudoscience and pseudophilosophy.
- Source: Pseudoscience and the Demarcation Problem / IEP
See Also
Please Note: This is my personal summary of the topic, shared both for my own records and in the hope it may be helpful to you. AI was used in parts to assist with the process.