Demarcation problem
1 like951 views
This document summarizes Larry Laudan's argument that philosophers have failed to identify features that clearly demarcate science from other domains of knowledge. It discusses past attempts by philosophers like Aristotle, logical positivists and Popper to establish criteria for demarcating science. Laudan argues that these attempts have failed due to heterogeneity within science and problems with proposed criteria. He concludes that demarcation is a "pseudo-problem" and we should instead focus on what makes beliefs well-founded. The document also briefly summarizes Massimo Pigliucci's response that abandoning demarcation would be premature given issues like anti-vaccination movements.
Demarcation problem
- 1. The Demise of the Demarcation Problem-Larry Laudan(1983) Philosophers, the gatekeepers of science, have failed to identify the epistemic features that separate science from other sorts of belief Early demarcationist Tradition Parmenides, Aristotle Comte, Helmholtz, Mach New Demarcationist Tradition Logical Positivists Popper Miscellaneous attempts (Thagard, etc.)
- 2. Aristotle’s attempt to demarcate Science Deals with causes, must use logical demonstrations and identify universals with particular senses Derives from 1st principles, directly intuited from sense INFALLIABLE KNOW-WHY rather than KNOW-HOW If this were to be accepted, can Astronomy during Ptolemy’s period qualify as science? Galileo, Huygens, Newton refused to speculate on primary/underlying causes The 19th century perspective of Epistemology being fallible blurs the distinction between Knowledge and opinion, undermining scientific beliefs
- 3. Scientific Method as the demarcating criterion Science has a unity of method across its sub-disciplines and it has epistemic credibility But there is no agreement on what might be this one technique might be (wide difference over inductive method, observables, making predictions) Certain unifying principles proposed (Feign no hypothesis, avoid ad-hoc changes to theory, post simple theories) are ambiguous and vague There is a gap between actual scientific practice and the scientific method proposed
- 4. New Attempts at Demarcation Logical Positivists held that Verifiability, meaningfulness and scientific character coincide A claim is scientific if it has a determinate meaning and determinate meaning is only possible if the statement can be exhaustively verified Problems- Universal laws cannot be verified Mere verifiability might not make a claim scientific ex- Flat earth theorists
- 5. New Attempts at Demarcation Popper claims that scientific beliefs are falsifiable. Pseudo scientific claims are not. Problems It leaves ambiguous the scientific status of every sing. existential statement (ex- There are atoms) Every crank claim that makes ascertainably false assertions would have to be called as scientific (ex- Creationists)
- 6. Other attempts Scientific claims are well tested Untested conjectures? Literary theory? Science is the sole repository of useful and reliable knowledge Scientific theories have often been proved wrong Cognitive Progress is unique to science Non-science disciplines have also made progress. Some scientific disciplines have not
- 7. Three Central questions (1) What conditions of adequacy should a proposed demarcation criterion satisfy? (2) Is the criterion under consideration offering necessary or sufficient conditions, or both, for scientific status? (3) What actions or judgments are implied by the claim that a certain belief or activity is 'scientific' or 'unscientific'?
- 8. Laudan’s Conclusion The evident epistemic heterogeneity of the activities and beliefs customarily regarded as scientific should alert us to the probable futility of seeking an epistemic version of a demarcation criterion However we settle this, Science will include much that is not commonly regarded as scientific and will exclude much that is generally considered science Pseudo-science is just a hollow phrase which has only an emotive appeal and is more suited to the rhetoric of politicians that of empirical researchers Hence, demarcation is a pseudo-problem. We should ask what makes a belief well founded or heuristically fertile and not what makes a belief scientific?
- 9. Massimo Pigilucci- Belated response to Laudan (2013) Massimo holds that Laudan’s requiem for the demarcation problem was much too premature In his article, while acknowledging problems in efforts so far, concerning demarcation, he argues that one should not abandon attempts to pursue the demarcation in light of campaigns like anti-vaccination and racial supremacy He uses the concept of Family resemblances(Wittgenstein) to avoid the ‘trap’ of necessary and sufficient conditions
- 11. Conclusion Science and pseudoscience play important roles in the dealings of modern society. And it is high time that philosophers get their hands dirty and join the fray to make their own distinctive contributions to the all important— sometimes even vital—distinction between sense and nonsense