Are You a Demarcation Pro?

The Demarcation Problem: Distinguishing Science from Non-Science

The demarcation problem in philosophy of science asks what distinguishes science from non-science.
Pseudoscience is a subspecies of non-science that masks itself as science.
The ability to distinguish science from non-science is important for policy-making, courts, healthcare, education, journalism, and grant agencies.
Demarcation criteria are employed to assess whether a theory is scientific or not.
Empirical theories consist of synthetic propositions and are not true by definition.
Not all empirical theories are scientific, as some may be based on no experience whatsoever.
The contemporary criterion for empirical theories is that they must be grounded in our experience of the world.
This criterion is not sufficient to demarcate scientific theories from unscientific ones, as demonstrated by the anti-vaxxer movement.
Another criterion proposed is falsifiability, which states that a scientific theory must be able to be proven false.
Falsifiability alone is also not sufficient, as certain unscientific theories can be made falsifiable.
The criterion of explanatory power is also proposed, which states that a scientific theory must explain a wide range of phenomena.
However, the criterion of explanatory power also has limitations, as certain unscientific theories can also explain a wide range of phenomena.Refining the Criteria for Scientific Theories
Suggestion 1 allows theories based on arbitrarily selected experiences to be considered scientific, which is problematic.
Suggestion 2 requires a theory to explain all known facts of its domain to avoid cherry-picking, but this is unrealistic as even accepted scientific theories don't explain everything.
Suggestion 3 requires a theory to explain the majority of the known facts of its domain, which is more realistic.
Suggestion 3 also introduces the requirement of testability, which means a theory must be testable in principle, even if not currently possible.
Testability can be understood through two opposing notions: verifiability and falsifiability.
Verificationism requires a theory to be confirmed through experiments and observations, while falsificationism requires a theory to be potentially disconfirmed.
Falsifiability is closer to current expectations in empirical science.
Young-Earth creationism is an example of a theory that could be considered scientific under verificationism, but not falsificationism.
Theories can be considered scientific if they explain, by and large, the known facts of their domain and are testable in principle.
However, this criterion is not sufficient to demarcate scientific from unscientific theories.
Another necessary condition may be required, such as the ability to make successful predictions or explanatory power.
Ultimately, demarcation criteria for scientific theories are complex and may continue to evolve over time.The Demarcation Problem: Criteria for Scientific Theories
The contemporary scientific community considers a theory scientific if it explains the known facts of its domain and is falsifiable.
Falsifiability means that the theory can be contradicted by results of experiments and observations.
The criteria for demarcating science from non-science are not fixed or universal and can differ across time periods and fields of inquiry.
The Aristotelian-Medieval community considered a theory scientific if it attempted to grasp the nature of a thing under study.
The Aristotelian-Medieval community considered mechanics unscientific because it dealt with things crafted by humans that were thought to have no intrinsic nature.
Astrology was considered scientific by the Aristotelian-Medieval community but is not considered scientific today.
Demarcation criteria change through time and can differ from one field of inquiry to another.
Demarcation criteria are part of the method of the time, and theories are appraised by different communities at different periods of history using different criteria.
Demarcation criteria are changeable, and the process of scientific change is where the distinction between science and non-science lies.
Imre Lakatos suggested that it is the transitions from one scientific theory to another that can be qualified as scientific or unscientific, not individual theories themselves.
A modification of the mosaic is scientific if it takes place in accord with the laws of scientific change, and it is unscientific if it violates at least one of the laws.
The laws of scientific change are meant to be descriptions of general patterns at the organizational level of the scientific mosaic. Violations of these laws are possible, as higher-level laws are considered local and hold only in specific conditions.The Laws of Scientific Change: Understanding Pseudoscience
The extinction of all paleontologists and their data would violate the first law of scientific change, which prohibits the sudden removal of theories from the mosaic.
The second law can be violated if a new theory is accepted without satisfying the acceptance criteria employed at the time.
The third law can be violated by employing a method that does not deductively follow from our other accepted theories and employed methods.
The zeroth law can be violated if a pair of theories doesn’t satisfy the compatibility criteria of the mosaic and yet manages to simultaneously persist within a mosaic.
The conjunction of the zeroth and first laws dictate that any incompatible theories be immediately rejected when a new theory is accepted.
A change in the mosaic strikes us as unscientific if it violates one or more of the laws of scientific change.
A change in the mosaic can be considered pseudoscientific if, while violating at least one of the laws, it is also presented as though it has followed them all.
There are two distinct questions of demarcation: one concerning scientific theories and one concerning the process of scientific change.
The criteria of demarcation are changeable and there is no universal and transhistorical answer to what makes a theory scientific.
The characteristics of the process of scientific change can be determined by checking if a certain change violated the laws of scientific change.
The laws of scientific change help us articulate what about each change makes it unscientific.
Understanding the laws of scientific change is crucial in identifying and combating pseudoscientific claims.

The Demarcation Problem: Distinguishing Science from Non-Science

The demarcation problem in philosophy of science asks what distinguishes science from non-science.
Pseudoscience is a subspecies of non-science that masks itself as science.
The ability to distinguish science from non-science is important for policy-making, courts, healthcare, education, journalism, and grant agencies.
Demarcation criteria are employed to assess whether a theory is scientific or not.
Empirical theories consist of synthetic propositions and are not true by definition.
Not all empirical theories are scientific, as some may be based on no experience whatsoever.
The contemporary criterion for empirical theories is that they must be grounded in our experience of the world.
This criterion is not sufficient to demarcate scientific theories from unscientific ones, as demonstrated by the anti-vaxxer movement.
Another criterion proposed is falsifiability, which states that a scientific theory must be able to be proven false.
Falsifiability alone is also not sufficient, as certain unscientific theories can be made falsifiable.
The criterion of explanatory power is also proposed, which states that a scientific theory must explain a wide range of phenomena.
However, the criterion of explanatory power also has limitations, as certain unscientific theories can also explain a wide range of phenomena.Refining the Criteria for Scientific Theories
Suggestion 1 allows theories based on arbitrarily selected experiences to be considered scientific, which is problematic.
Suggestion 2 requires a theory to explain all known facts of its domain to avoid cherry-picking, but this is unrealistic as even accepted scientific theories don't explain everything.
Suggestion 3 requires a theory to explain the majority of the known facts of its domain, which is more realistic.
Suggestion 3 also introduces the requirement of testability, which means a theory must be testable in principle, even if not currently possible.
Testability can be understood through two opposing notions: verifiability and falsifiability.
Verificationism requires a theory to be confirmed through experiments and observations, while falsificationism requires a theory to be potentially disconfirmed.
Falsifiability is closer to current expectations in empirical science.
Young-Earth creationism is an example of a theory that could be considered scientific under verificationism, but not falsificationism.
Theories can be considered scientific if they explain, by and large, the known facts of their domain and are testable in principle.
However, this criterion is not sufficient to demarcate scientific from unscientific theories.
Another necessary condition may be required, such as the ability to make successful predictions or explanatory power.
Ultimately, demarcation criteria for scientific theories are complex and may continue to evolve over time.The Demarcation Problem: Criteria for Scientific Theories
The contemporary scientific community considers a theory scientific if it explains the known facts of its domain and is falsifiable.
Falsifiability means that the theory can be contradicted by results of experiments and observations.
The criteria for demarcating science from non-science are not fixed or universal and can differ across time periods and fields of inquiry.
The Aristotelian-Medieval community considered a theory scientific if it attempted to grasp the nature of a thing under study.
The Aristotelian-Medieval community considered mechanics unscientific because it dealt with things crafted by humans that were thought to have no intrinsic nature.
Astrology was considered scientific by the Aristotelian-Medieval community but is not considered scientific today.
Demarcation criteria change through time and can differ from one field of inquiry to another.
Demarcation criteria are part of the method of the time, and theories are appraised by different communities at different periods of history using different criteria.
Demarcation criteria are changeable, and the process of scientific change is where the distinction between science and non-science lies.
Imre Lakatos suggested that it is the transitions from one scientific theory to another that can be qualified as scientific or unscientific, not individual theories themselves.
A modification of the mosaic is scientific if it takes place in accord with the laws of scientific change, and it is unscientific if it violates at least one of the laws.
The laws of scientific change are meant to be descriptions of general patterns at the organizational level of the scientific mosaic. Violations of these laws are possible, as higher-level laws are considered local and hold only in specific conditions.The Laws of Scientific Change: Understanding Pseudoscience
The extinction of all paleontologists and their data would violate the first law of scientific change, which prohibits the sudden removal of theories from the mosaic.
The second law can be violated if a new theory is accepted without satisfying the acceptance criteria employed at the time.
The third law can be violated by employing a method that does not deductively follow from our other accepted theories and employed methods.
The zeroth law can be violated if a pair of theories doesn’t satisfy the compatibility criteria of the mosaic and yet manages to simultaneously persist within a mosaic.
The conjunction of the zeroth and first laws dictate that any incompatible theories be immediately rejected when a new theory is accepted.
A change in the mosaic strikes us as unscientific if it violates one or more of the laws of scientific change.
A change in the mosaic can be considered pseudoscientific if, while violating at least one of the laws, it is also presented as though it has followed them all.
There are two distinct questions of demarcation: one concerning scientific theories and one concerning the process of scientific change.
The criteria of demarcation are changeable and there is no universal and transhistorical answer to what makes a theory scientific.
The characteristics of the process of scientific change can be determined by checking if a certain change violated the laws of scientific change.
The laws of scientific change help us articulate what about each change makes it unscientific.
Understanding the laws of scientific change is crucial in identifying and combating pseudoscientific claims.