The demarcation of science
Introduction
The demarcation problem is the one that tries to distinguish “science” from “non-science”-which is a misnomer-. In the present day science and technology are the heart of our modern society. To solve that problem we need to know, what is science, and what is non-science. Many areas of our lives rely on the definitive answer to the demarcation issue. All non-science is not pseudo-science. According to Hansson (1996) Pseudo-science has to be unscientific and to pretend to be a science .on the other hand non-science does not pretend to be science like literature. So rephrasing the problem of demarcation to be the demarcation of “science” and “pseudo-science” is more accurate terminology.
The ability to know …show more content…
Albert Einstein one of the greatest scientists of all time once said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong” (as cited in Calaprice, 2011). Popper’s answer to the demarcation problem was falsification, he defined falsifiability as follows “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962). In other words if a statement cannot be proven to be wrong then it does not belong to science. Science can never prove anything to be true because if it does it will be by definition not science .hence popper’s proposal draw a line between empirical science and the metaphysical or pseudo-science. Although falsification is a necessary element in the scientific process, falsification alone is not a good model to solve the problem. Popper’s model had several defects .one of them that according to his mono-criterion that he adopted to be declared some areas that were thought to be science as non-science. Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science (Hansson 2006) and for giving some pseudo-science the status of being scientific (Mahner, …show more content…
Merton. He proposed that science is characterized by four traits of science that he calls “institutional imperative” (Merton, 1973). The first is called “universalism” meaning that science is independent of the protagonists’ personal and social beliefs. Physics as a science is described by physicists as “observer independent”. Many scientists believe that science is universal .the second is “communism” stating that science is and outcomes of science are the products of a social collaboration and that science is not limited to certain individuals or communities, this is very obvious through the display of the interdisciplinarity between different areas of science. The third one is “disinterestedness” that protagonists of science do not aim to prove outcomes for a personal or racial gain and that science is guided by the benefit of the scientific enterprise as a whole. The fourth one is “organized skepticism” which is emphasized through the exposure to the critical scrutiny of every scientific hypothesis, also “peer review” of scientific publication is an evidence for putting science under
Introduction
The demarcation problem is the one that tries to distinguish “science” from “non-science”-which is a misnomer-. In the present day science and technology are the heart of our modern society. To solve that problem we need to know, what is science, and what is non-science. Many areas of our lives rely on the definitive answer to the demarcation issue. All non-science is not pseudo-science. According to Hansson (1996) Pseudo-science has to be unscientific and to pretend to be a science .on the other hand non-science does not pretend to be science like literature. So rephrasing the problem of demarcation to be the demarcation of “science” and “pseudo-science” is more accurate terminology.
The ability to know …show more content…
Albert Einstein one of the greatest scientists of all time once said “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong” (as cited in Calaprice, 2011). Popper’s answer to the demarcation problem was falsification, he defined falsifiability as follows “statements or systems of statements, in order to be ranked as scientific, must be capable of conflicting with possible, or conceivable observations” (Popper 1962). In other words if a statement cannot be proven to be wrong then it does not belong to science. Science can never prove anything to be true because if it does it will be by definition not science .hence popper’s proposal draw a line between empirical science and the metaphysical or pseudo-science. Although falsification is a necessary element in the scientific process, falsification alone is not a good model to solve the problem. Popper’s model had several defects .one of them that according to his mono-criterion that he adopted to be declared some areas that were thought to be science as non-science. Popper's demarcation criterion has been criticized both for excluding legitimate science (Hansson 2006) and for giving some pseudo-science the status of being scientific (Mahner, …show more content…
Merton. He proposed that science is characterized by four traits of science that he calls “institutional imperative” (Merton, 1973). The first is called “universalism” meaning that science is independent of the protagonists’ personal and social beliefs. Physics as a science is described by physicists as “observer independent”. Many scientists believe that science is universal .the second is “communism” stating that science is and outcomes of science are the products of a social collaboration and that science is not limited to certain individuals or communities, this is very obvious through the display of the interdisciplinarity between different areas of science. The third one is “disinterestedness” that protagonists of science do not aim to prove outcomes for a personal or racial gain and that science is guided by the benefit of the scientific enterprise as a whole. The fourth one is “organized skepticism” which is emphasized through the exposure to the critical scrutiny of every scientific hypothesis, also “peer review” of scientific publication is an evidence for putting science under