COMMENT:An examination of psychology-related borderline sciences in a historical context, in order to address how science and pseudoscience are differentiated. The historical surveys are the best part of the book, particularly when demonstrating that the character of phrenology was not quite the obvious crackpottery it is often remembered as. Makes a good case against an ahistorical demarcation criterion based on logical characteristics of theories, but the flaw of the book is the cardboard philosophy of science it relies on: describing only the approaches of Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, and taking a Kuhnian picture to be the last word.
