Maarten Boudry
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0006
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter attempts to clarify the confusion between genuine demarcation (the science/pseudoscience boundaries) and the “territorial” demarcation between science and other epistemic fields ...
More
This chapter attempts to clarify the confusion between genuine demarcation (the science/pseudoscience boundaries) and the “territorial” demarcation between science and other epistemic fields (philosophy, mathematics). It argues that only the former is pressing and worth pursuing. The territorial problem has little epistemic import, suffers from additional categorization problems, and consequently neither calls nor allows for anything more than a pragmatic and rough-and-ready solution. The normative demarcation project, by contrast is eminently worthy of philosophical attention, not only because it carries real epistemic import and practical urgency, but also because it happens to be a tractable problem.Less
This chapter attempts to clarify the confusion between genuine demarcation (the science/pseudoscience boundaries) and the “territorial” demarcation between science and other epistemic fields (philosophy, mathematics). It argues that only the former is pressing and worth pursuing. The territorial problem has little epistemic import, suffers from additional categorization problems, and consequently neither calls nor allows for anything more than a pragmatic and rough-and-ready solution. The normative demarcation project, by contrast is eminently worthy of philosophical attention, not only because it carries real epistemic import and practical urgency, but also because it happens to be a tractable problem.
Thomas Nickles
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0007
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter begins with a historical background of the demarcation problem. It then reviews some twentieth-century developments; considers demarcation as a social problem; and offers a summary of ...
More
This chapter begins with a historical background of the demarcation problem. It then reviews some twentieth-century developments; considers demarcation as a social problem; and offers a summary of philosophical difficulties with demarcation. It concludes that demarcation should proceed on several fronts, not one which is intellectually decisive but which, together, provide sufficient purchase for practical purposes on neutral playing fields.Less
This chapter begins with a historical background of the demarcation problem. It then reviews some twentieth-century developments; considers demarcation as a social problem; and offers a summary of philosophical difficulties with demarcation. It concludes that demarcation should proceed on several fronts, not one which is intellectually decisive but which, together, provide sufficient purchase for practical purposes on neutral playing fields.
Wallace Matson
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199812691
- eISBN:
- 9780199919420
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199812691.003.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, History of Philosophy
Overview. Genesis of the work in attempt to solve Popper's Demarcation Problem, separation of sense from nonsense, by considering beliefs and verifications instead of propositions and verifiability. ...
More
Overview. Genesis of the work in attempt to solve Popper's Demarcation Problem, separation of sense from nonsense, by considering beliefs and verifications instead of propositions and verifiability. I go at this historically, showing what beliefs are and how they arise in animals in the course of coping with their environments, and how language makes possible unverified (“high”) beliefs, conflatable into grand theories. Thales of Miletus invented science with the first grand theory based on everyday (“low”) beliefs. I identify the main characteristics of science as monism, immanence, and rationalism and trace their vicissitudes until their displacement by the Christian world view of the old type. Philosophy, I contend, has still not recovered from being handmaiden to theology. Medieval notions hang on unnoticed in the notions of logical possibility, possible worlds, and, in ethics, commandments. I conclude with sketches of renaturalized ethical and political theories, and rather unhappy prognostications.Less
Overview. Genesis of the work in attempt to solve Popper's Demarcation Problem, separation of sense from nonsense, by considering beliefs and verifications instead of propositions and verifiability. I go at this historically, showing what beliefs are and how they arise in animals in the course of coping with their environments, and how language makes possible unverified (“high”) beliefs, conflatable into grand theories. Thales of Miletus invented science with the first grand theory based on everyday (“low”) beliefs. I identify the main characteristics of science as monism, immanence, and rationalism and trace their vicissitudes until their displacement by the Christian world view of the old type. Philosophy, I contend, has still not recovered from being handmaiden to theology. Medieval notions hang on unnoticed in the notions of logical possibility, possible worlds, and, in ethics, commandments. I conclude with sketches of renaturalized ethical and political theories, and rather unhappy prognostications.
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? This book seeks to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue ...
More
What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? This book seeks to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to ponder. However, the chapters here make a case for the unequivocal importance of reflecting on the separation between pseudoscience and sound science. Moreover, the demarcation problem is not a purely theoretical dilemma of mere academic interest: it affects parents' decisions to vaccinate children and governments' willingness to adopt policies that prevent climate change. Pseudoscience often mimics science, using the superficial language and trappings of actual scientific research to seem more respectable. Even a well-informed public can be taken in by such questionable theories dressed up as science. Pseudoscientific beliefs compete with sound science on the health pages of newspapers for media coverage and in laboratories for research funding. Now more than ever the ability to separate genuine scientific findings from spurious ones is vital, and this book provides ground for philosophers, sociologists, historians, and laypeople to make decisions about what science is or isn't.Less
What sets the practice of rigorously tested, sound science apart from pseudoscience? This book seeks to answer this question, known to philosophers of science as “the demarcation problem.” This issue has a long history in philosophy, stretching as far back as the early twentieth century and the work of Karl Popper. But by the late 1980s, scholars in the field began to treat the demarcation problem as impossible to solve and futile to ponder. However, the chapters here make a case for the unequivocal importance of reflecting on the separation between pseudoscience and sound science. Moreover, the demarcation problem is not a purely theoretical dilemma of mere academic interest: it affects parents' decisions to vaccinate children and governments' willingness to adopt policies that prevent climate change. Pseudoscience often mimics science, using the superficial language and trappings of actual scientific research to seem more respectable. Even a well-informed public can be taken in by such questionable theories dressed up as science. Pseudoscientific beliefs compete with sound science on the health pages of newspapers for media coverage and in laboratories for research funding. Now more than ever the ability to separate genuine scientific findings from spurious ones is vital, and this book provides ground for philosophers, sociologists, historians, and laypeople to make decisions about what science is or isn't.
Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This introductory chapter sets out the book's purpose, which is to offer a lively and constructive discussion about demarcationism among philosophers, sociologists, historians, and professional ...
More
This introductory chapter sets out the book's purpose, which is to offer a lively and constructive discussion about demarcationism among philosophers, sociologists, historians, and professional skeptics. By proposing something of a new philosophical subdiscipline, the Philosophy of Pseudoscience, it attempts to convince those following in Larry Laudan's footsteps that the term “pseudoscience” does single out something real that merits attention. An overview of the subsequent chapters is also presented.Less
This introductory chapter sets out the book's purpose, which is to offer a lively and constructive discussion about demarcationism among philosophers, sociologists, historians, and professional skeptics. By proposing something of a new philosophical subdiscipline, the Philosophy of Pseudoscience, it attempts to convince those following in Larry Laudan's footsteps that the term “pseudoscience” does single out something real that merits attention. An overview of the subsequent chapters is also presented.
Sven Ove Hansson
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0005
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter recasts the demarcation problem in terms of epistemic warrant. It proposes a definition of pseudoscience that differs from most previous proposals by operating on a higher level of ...
More
This chapter recasts the demarcation problem in terms of epistemic warrant. It proposes a definition of pseudoscience that differs from most previous proposals by operating on a higher level of epistemic generality. It defends that feature of the definition and explains how it contributes to avoiding some of the problems besetting previously proposed definitions.Less
This chapter recasts the demarcation problem in terms of epistemic warrant. It proposes a definition of pseudoscience that differs from most previous proposals by operating on a higher level of epistemic generality. It defends that feature of the definition and explains how it contributes to avoiding some of the problems besetting previously proposed definitions.
Michael Shermer
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0012
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter examines the demographics of pseudoscientific and the problems in finding agreement among scientists, philosophers, and historians of science on how best to demarcate science from ...
More
This chapter examines the demographics of pseudoscientific and the problems in finding agreement among scientists, philosophers, and historians of science on how best to demarcate science from pseudoscience. It examines how science is defined as a way of distinguishing it from pseudoscience; some examples of science, pseudoscience, and in-between claims; as well as how the legal system deals with the demarcation problem in court cases that require such a determination to adjudicate a legal dispute.Less
This chapter examines the demographics of pseudoscientific and the problems in finding agreement among scientists, philosophers, and historians of science on how best to demarcate science from pseudoscience. It examines how science is defined as a way of distinguishing it from pseudoscience; some examples of science, pseudoscience, and in-between claims; as well as how the legal system deals with the demarcation problem in court cases that require such a determination to adjudicate a legal dispute.
Michael Ruse
- Published in print:
- 2013
- Published Online:
- January 2014
- ISBN:
- 9780226051796
- eISBN:
- 9780226051826
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- University of Chicago Press
- DOI:
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226051826.003.0013
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science
This chapter discusses the history of evolutionary thinking when evolution was treated as pseudoscience and then popular science, before blossoming into a professional science, thus challenging a ...
More
This chapter discusses the history of evolutionary thinking when evolution was treated as pseudoscience and then popular science, before blossoming into a professional science, thus challenging a conception of demarcation in terms of timeless and purely formal principles. For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was—and was seen to be—a pseudoscience. It was a vision of the organic world that emerged simply because living things were viewed through the lens of an ideology about the cultural and social world. The second major change in the status of evolutionary thinking came around 1930 when Darwinian selection was brought together fruitfully with the newly developed Mendelian (later molecular) genetics.Less
This chapter discusses the history of evolutionary thinking when evolution was treated as pseudoscience and then popular science, before blossoming into a professional science, thus challenging a conception of demarcation in terms of timeless and purely formal principles. For the first one hundred and fifty years evolution was—and was seen to be—a pseudoscience. It was a vision of the organic world that emerged simply because living things were viewed through the lens of an ideology about the cultural and social world. The second major change in the status of evolutionary thinking came around 1930 when Darwinian selection was brought together fruitfully with the newly developed Mendelian (later molecular) genetics.
Jason Rosenhouse
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- May 2015
- ISBN:
- 9780199744633
- eISBN:
- 9780190267827
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199744633.003.0020
- Subject:
- Biology, Ecology
In this chapter, the author considers philosophical questions about methodological naturalism (MN). Among intelligent design (ID) supporters “science” is commonly understood to refer to the totality ...
More
In this chapter, the author considers philosophical questions about methodological naturalism (MN). Among intelligent design (ID) supporters “science” is commonly understood to refer to the totality of all that is true about nature. That God created the world is certainly part of that truth. Philosophers of science have long discussed the “demarcation problem,” by which they refer to the attempt to draw a clear line between science and other sorts of inquiry. In this regard it has been suggested that science must adhere to the MN principle. It is claimed that although the line between science and nonscience is sometimes blurry, an invocation of supernatural entities nonetheless places you automatically on the wrong side of it. The term “methodological” indicates that naturalistic presumptions are a matter of scientific practice only. The author discusses the arguments of Robert Pennock in defense of MN. He also comments on the conflict between the empirical realities of nature and deeply held notions about God.Less
In this chapter, the author considers philosophical questions about methodological naturalism (MN). Among intelligent design (ID) supporters “science” is commonly understood to refer to the totality of all that is true about nature. That God created the world is certainly part of that truth. Philosophers of science have long discussed the “demarcation problem,” by which they refer to the attempt to draw a clear line between science and other sorts of inquiry. In this regard it has been suggested that science must adhere to the MN principle. It is claimed that although the line between science and nonscience is sometimes blurry, an invocation of supernatural entities nonetheless places you automatically on the wrong side of it. The term “methodological” indicates that naturalistic presumptions are a matter of scientific practice only. The author discusses the arguments of Robert Pennock in defense of MN. He also comments on the conflict between the empirical realities of nature and deeply held notions about God.
Alvin Plantinga
- Published in print:
- 2018
- Published Online:
- August 2018
- ISBN:
- 9780190462758
- eISBN:
- 9780190462772
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780190462758.003.0010
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Philosophy of Science, General
This chapter surveys several possible versions of scientism and argues that most of them are false. It also suggests that its most obvious motivation, empiricism in either scientism’s classical or ...
More
This chapter surveys several possible versions of scientism and argues that most of them are false. It also suggests that its most obvious motivation, empiricism in either scientism’s classical or positivistic guise, has little to recommend itself. The chapter then homes in on a more moderate version of scientism: the idea that when any nonscientific belief comes into conflict with a scientific belief, it is always the scientific belief that should prevail. This form of scientism, too, fails, for it can be reasonable to hang on to Christian belief even when it fits ill with scientific orthodoxy. Moderate scientism doesn’t appear moderate on closer inspection, for it implies that Christian belief is false. The right way to think about things is that science is a wonderful institution and a wonderful source of knowledge or warranted belief, but it is not our only source of knowledge about ourselves and our world.Less
This chapter surveys several possible versions of scientism and argues that most of them are false. It also suggests that its most obvious motivation, empiricism in either scientism’s classical or positivistic guise, has little to recommend itself. The chapter then homes in on a more moderate version of scientism: the idea that when any nonscientific belief comes into conflict with a scientific belief, it is always the scientific belief that should prevail. This form of scientism, too, fails, for it can be reasonable to hang on to Christian belief even when it fits ill with scientific orthodoxy. Moderate scientism doesn’t appear moderate on closer inspection, for it implies that Christian belief is false. The right way to think about things is that science is a wonderful institution and a wonderful source of knowledge or warranted belief, but it is not our only source of knowledge about ourselves and our world.
