The Demarcation Problem

a brief introduction 01

Tomá² Ondrá£ek

Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy,

BRAK

Pozna«2016

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

the demise and the needs

Laudan (1983): The Demise of the Demarcation Problem

�[. . . ] we ought to drop terms like 'pseudo-science' and 'unscienti�c' from ourvocabulary; they are just hollow phrases which do only emotive work for us.�

�The 'scienti�c' status of those claims is altogether irrelevant.�

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

the demise and the needs

The Needs for Demarcation (cf. Hansson (2015); Pigliucci and Boudry (2013). . . )

I practicalI policy

ex.: funding of institutions, procedures,. . .I education

ex.: creationism / intelligent design & evolution theoryI health care

ex.: stem cellsI justice (expert testimonies)

ex.: pyramid razor sharpenerI . . .

I theoreticalI material starting pointsI epistemological warrantI . . .

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

preliminary questions

What do we want to demarcate?

I scienceI branches of science

I natural sciences, formal sciences, social sciences,. . .I good science

I fruitful, responsible. . .I bad science

I something involving problematic practises. . .I pseudo-science

I something involving mismeasurements and miscalculation. . .I unscience

I something in contradiction or in con�ict with scienceI parascience

I something next to scienceI various types of systems of beliefs

I metaphysics, religion, art . . .

I non-science

I . . .

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

preliminary questions

What do we want to achieve?

I description

I prescription

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

preliminary questions

What should we take under consideration?

I theories

I systems of propositions

I people

I practices

I . . .

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

preliminary questions

Is demarcation universal?

I time/history

I domains/�elds/branches

I universal

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

preliminary questions

Is demarcation fixed?

I once a science/non-science, always a sciences/non-science

I a science/non-science can turn out to be a non-science/science

I a science can turn out to be a non-science

I a non-science can turn out to be a science

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

preliminary questions

How can this be done?

I examination of theories

I empirical examination

I . . .

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

introduction

Domains of Interest

I Marx's theory of history

I Freud's psychoanalysis

I Adler's individual psychology

I Einstein's theory of relativity

�It began to dawn on me that this apparent strength was in fact theirweakness.�

(Popper, 2014:34)

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

introduction

Popper (2005): Two Problems of Induction

I psychologicalI Why do We Believe . . .

I logicalI logical formI justi�cation of induction

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

forms of theories

Popper (2005): Forms of Statements

I singular statementsI individual concept

I universal statementsI numerically universal statementsI strictly universal statements

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

forms of theories

Popper (2005): Forms of Statements

I exitential statements

I non-existence statements

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

forms of theories

Popper (2005): Forms of Theories

rigorous axiomatized systemI consistency

I epistemological usefulness

I prohibitonI possibility of falsi�cation

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

forms of theories

Popper (2005): Fries's Trilemma

I psychologism

I in�nite regress

I dogmatism

I version of dogmatismI no �rm base

I observability

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

falsi�ability

Components

I theory

I initial conditions

I basic statements

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

problems & critique

Problems & Critique

I immunizations

I determination of theories

I missing empirical baseI not corresponding to scienti�c practise

I Thick Skin Problem

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

problems & critique

Thick Skin of Scientists

�Scientists have thick skins. They do not abandon a theory merely becausefacts contradict it. They normally either invent some rescue hypothesis toexplain what they then call a mere anomaly or, if they cannot explain the

anomaly, they ignore it, and direct their attention to other problems. Note thatscientists talk about anomalies, recalcitrant instances, not refutations.�

(Lakatos, 1978:5�4)

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

revolutions 1st edition

Kuhn (1962): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1st edition)

I pre-paradigm periodI period of normal science

I cumulative procesI dogmas

I period of non-normal scienceI period of extraordinary scienceI period of scienti�c revolution

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

critique of a paradigm

Masterman (1970): The Nature of a paradigm

I metaparadigms

I sociological paradigms

I artefact/construct paradigms

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

critique of a paradigm

Shapere (1964): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

I �paradigms cannot, in general, be formulated adequately�

I �cannot be described adequately in words�

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

revolutions 2nd edition

Kuhn (2012): The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (other editions)

I symbolic generalizations

I models

I values

I exemplars

I . . .

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

critique of a disciplinary matrix

Shapere (1971): Critique of the Paradigm Concept

I We are unusre what is content of disciplinary matrix.

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

types of falsi�cation

I NaïveI dogmatic

I �rm empirical base

I metodologicalI conventional empirical baseI passivists vs. activist

I SophisticatedI rules of falsi�cation or eliminationI rules of acceptance

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

research programmes

Structure of Research Programmes

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

research programmes

Lakatos and Musgrave (1970:116):Sophisticated Falsification

�For the sophisticated falsi�cationist a scienti�c theory T is falsi�ed if and onlyif another theory T' has been proposed with the following characteristics: (I) T'has excess empirical content over T: that is, it predicts novel facts, that is,facts improbable in the light of, or even forbidden, by T;3 (2) T' explains theprevious success of T, that is, all the unrefuted content of T is included (within

the limits of observational error) in the content of T'; and (3) some of theexcess content of T' is corroborated.�

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

I The Needs for DemarcationI practicalI teoretical

I Classical SolutionsI Popper: potential falsi�abilityI Kuhn: puzzle-solvingI Lakatos: progressive research programme

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

bibliography I

Combe, G. (1835). Engraving of craniometer from elements of phrenology.

Retrieved from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/

7/70/Craniometer.Elements.of.phrenology.George.Combe.1.png

(picture; online; accessed 2016-11-13)Hansson, S. O. (2015). Science and pseudo-science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The

stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2015 ed.). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/pseudo-science/.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scienti�c revolutions (1st ed.). Universityof Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scienti�c revolutions (4th ed.). Universityof Chicago Press.

Lakatos, I. (1978). The methodology of scienti�c research programmes (Vol. 1;J. Worrall & G. Currie, Eds.). Cambridge university press.

Lakatos, I. & Musgrave, A. (Eds.). (1970). Criticism and the growth of

knowledge.

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem

Introduction Popper Kuhn Lakatos Summary References

bibliography II

Laudan, L. (1983). The demise of the demarcation problem. In R. S. Cohen &R. Laudan (Eds.), Physics, philosophy and psychoanalysis (p. 111�127).Springer.

Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos &A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge:

Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science,

London, 1965. Cambridge University Press.Pigliucci, M. & Boudry, M. (2013). The dangers of pseudoscience. New York

Times, 10.Popper, K. (2005). The logic of scienti�c discovery. Routledge.Popper, K. (2014). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scienti�c

knowledge. Routledge.Shapere, D. (1964). The structure of scienti�c revolutions. The Philosophical

Review, 73(3), 383�394.Shapere, D. (1971). The paradigm concept. Science, 172(3), 706�709.

Tomá² Ondrá£ek Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy, BRAK

The Demarcation Problem