1

Many people talk about the demarcation problem, which is supposed to be about finding a criterion that would distinguish between "scientific" and "non-scientific" theories.

Yet any such criterion is ultimately just a convention. If we wanted to, we could call anything science - there is nothing special about the word "science".

So people who talk about this problem obviously need to have other criteria their demarcation criterion should meet in mind, but they are rarely very specific about what those are.

What are usually those criteria people are trying to meet with their demarcation criterion? (In particular I'm interested in what Karl Popper was trying to accomplish with his solution).

  • Is it arbitrary? Or perhaps unknown to you? – danielm Oct 6 '12 at 9:21
1

You would be interested to read more about paradigms (Thomas Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) if you haven't done it already.

The paradigm is the widely accepted way of 'doing' science. The actions made with compiance with paradigm are considered scientific, while others are not. In scholastic age widely accepted way of prooving a statement was to build the logical proof leading back to Aristotle. Afterwards the paradigm changed and this is no longer valid.

Currently the scientific theory is the theory for which you can provide the serie of experiments, with the conditions for each experiment, that would speak for and against the theory. But this is current paradigm and it can change in the future.

-1

I think that is only properly the case in the sense of Plato's seventh letter, that all terms can take on any cathecttion and signal any concept and so forth. In this case though, is it not that for instance when Bacon spoke of the true science, when she started the scientific method, she actually hoped, at the end of the day for a fully inductive science, and not that of a method requires principles and strict hypothetical movements from object to paradigm.

What is demonstrated to the senses is not more rationally proved than what is put beside a religion of revelation that asks about the possibility that a god as set the laws of the world in place, and that we should agree with absolute intuition of those given experiences not given others, or any reason whatsoever for preceding along the lines of a paradigm or synoptic metaphysics. This is one thing, distinguishing between sense test approved data, and non sense test is another. SO your definition of science would have to move very far fro your statement to seem worthy of trepidation for the cold scientist in her shallow pig hole.

it is the essence of human nature to change, but some artifacts and so content have a long life, this is crude but maybe it casts light on the content of this important issue and the rules for its understanding that may drift Elswhere at any hour or in any age or dream

Also, more practically, surely 'science' means 'strict study' (in a less used definition) as well as the more common use, where it means to name scientific method, and the so-called hard sciences?

-3

Scientifically speaking or not, is, ...:

  • "Scientifically speaking" is strongly related to proven by justification through at least one (or all) of our five senses.

  • Or, "scientifically speaking" is strongly related to proven by justification through perceiving that has relation with the activation of the left side of our brain.

  • Where "non scientifically speaking" must be related to proven by justification through perceiving that has relation with the activation of the right side of our brain.

  • But if somehow, someday, spirituality is dominating our everyday life mostly or with frequency of the use of spirituality closer to the frequency of the use of our five senses, then "scientifically speaking" is strongly related to proven by justification through perceiving that has relation with the activation of the left and right sides of our brain.

Whichever is more clear or more solid on our understanding, may be considered as defining "scientifically speaking" within correct boundary.

Scientific Method

Despite about agreement on the basics of scientific method, but different side of both sides of our brain, or differentiation on the use of our five senses or beyond these (if further we explore and agree of these existences ...) has its own way to justify whether there is consistency at acceptance level or not.

Whether we consider scientific method generally known at current time as valid justification, but actually, if through the use of our five senses or beyond these (if further we explore and agree of these existences ...) we can find the consistency at acceptance level that can be used to advance our controls on ourselves or environment with consistency, then we already widen our scientific method.

Besides, putting scientific method (generally know at current time) still lack of consistency from time to time. For example: through our eyes, something may be considered has consistency but by justification through additional sense (experimenting, touching, etc) or through perceiving something even closer, maybe we will see inconsistency (perceiving the moon from the earth and visiting the moon will give different and wider understanding about the moon).

Meaning, all scientific method, spiritual method or any kind of possible methods, eventually must be focused on the result, whether there is consistency or not to the specific level (acceptance tolerance, in any means).

The points are:

  • Based on how to provide scientific method, may be traced back to different roots which maybe related to the activation of the left side of our brain (five senses) or may be traced back to different roots which maybe related to the activation of the right side of our brain (beyond five senses). We may be found different ways to make logical reasoning. We have to be open minded.

  • Based on how to provide valid justification, then for any kind of methods for valid justification, eventually must provide clear consistency at the acceptance level (acceptance tolerance, just like commonly used on measurement).There is no better method for valid justification, there is only proper justification because we can perceive consistency that can be used properly.

According to this, then there is nothing special with scientific method (or any kind of methods) if it fails to provide usefulness from consistencies, and vice versa (maybe considered as valid).

  • As long as we are confident with our knowledge, it is not actually a problem for downvotes, because over time, what we believe to be so (if true) will heal itself. If we have confidence in our own knowledge like this, then the communication can be done only for the correction of understanding, not correcting the essence of consistency of our knowledge. But it would be better if downvoting done after asking to clarify. Please feel free to downvote if you are still unsatisfied with our clarification. Am i correct? :) – Seremonia Oct 8 '12 at 1:32

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.