The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science

In philosophy of science, The demarcation problem refers to how to specify what are the limits between what is scientific and what is not..

Despite the age of this debate and the fact that a greater consensus has been gained as to what the bases of the scientific method, to this day there is still controversy when it comes to delimiting what is a science. We are going to see some of the currents behind the demarcation problem, mentioning its most relevant authors in the field of philosophy.

• Related article: "How are Psychology and Philosophy similar?"

What is the demarcation problem?

Throughout history, human beings have developed new knowledge, theories and explanations to try to describe in the best possible way the natural processes. However, many of these explanations have not started from solid empirical bases and the way in which they described reality was not entirely convincing.

That is why at various historical moments the debate has been opened about what clearly delimits a science from what is not. Today, despite the fact that access to the Internet and other sources of information allows us to know quickly and safely the opinion of people specialized in a subject, the truth is that there are still many people who follow positions and ideas that were already discarded many years ago, such as the belief in astrology, homeopathy or that the Earth is flat.

Knowing how to differentiate between what is scientific and what appears to be scientific is crucial in several aspects. Pseudoscientific behaviors are harmful both for those who create them and for their environment and even for society as a whole.

The movement against vaccines, who defend that this medical technique contributes to children suffering from autism and other conditions based on a global conspiracy, is the typical example of how pseudoscientific thoughts are seriously harmful for health. Another case is the denial of human origin in climate change, making those who show skeptics of this fact underestimate the detrimental effects on nature of global warming global.

The debate of what science is throughout history

Next we will see some of the historical currents that have addressed the debate about what the demarcation criteria should be.

1. classical period

Already in the time of Ancient Greece there was interest in delimiting between reality and what was subjectively perceived. A difference was made between true knowledge, called episteme, and one's own opinion or beliefs, doxa..

According to Plato, true knowledge could only be found in the world of ideas, a world in which knowledge is was shown in the purest possible way, and without the free interpretation that human beings gave of these ideas in the world real.

Of course, at this time science was not yet conceived as we do now, but the debate revolved around more abstract concepts of objectivity and subjectivity.

2. Crisis between religion and science

Although the roots of the demarcation problem go back to classical times, It was in the 19th century that the debate took real force. Science and religion were more clearly differentiated than in previous centuries, and they were perceived as antagonistic positions.

Scientific development, which tried to explain natural phenomena regardless of subjective beliefs and going straight to the empirical facts, it was perceived as declaring war on beliefs religious. A clear example of this conflict can be found in the publication of The origin of species, by Charles Darwin, which generated a real controversy and dismantled, under scientific criteria, the Christian belief in Creation as a voluntarily guided process from a form of intelligence divine.

3. logical positivism

At the beginning of the 20th century, a movement arose that tried to clarify the limit between science and what it is not. Logical positivism addressed the problem of demarcation and proposed criteria to clearly delimit that knowledge that was scientific from that which pretended to be or pseudoscientific.

This current is characterized by giving great importance to science and be contrary to metaphysics, that is, that which is beyond the empirical world and that, therefore, cannot be demonstrated by experience, as the existence of God would be.

Among the most notable positivists we have auguste comte and Ernst Mach. These authors considered that a society will always achieve progress when science is its fundamental pillar. This would mark the difference between the previous periods, characterized by metaphysical and religious beliefs.

The positivists believed that For a statement to be scientific, it had to have some kind of support, either through experience or reason.. The fundamental criterion is that it should be able to be verified.

For example, demonstrating that the earth is round can be verified empirically, going around the world or taking satellite photographs. In this way, it is possible to know if this statement is true or false.

However, the positivists considered that the empirical criterion was not enough to define whether something was scientific or not. For the formal sciences, which can hardly be demonstrated through experience, another demarcation criterion was necessary. According to positivism, this type of science were provable in case their statements could be justified by themselves, that is, that they were tautological.

4. Karl Popper and falsificationism

Karl Popper considered that for science to advance it was necessary, instead of looking for all the cases that confirmed a theory, look for cases that deny it. This is, in essence, his criteria for falsificationism.

Traditionally, science had been done based on induction, that is, assuming that if several cases were found that confirmed a theory, it had to be true. For example, if we go to a pond and see that all the swans there are white, we infer that the swans are always white; but... what if we see a black swan? Popper considered that this case is an example that science is something provisional and that, In case something is found that disproves a postulate, what is given as true would have to be reformulated.

In accordance with the opinion of another philosopher prior to Popper, Emmanuel Kant, one must take a view that is neither very skeptical nor dogma of current knowledge, given that science assumes a more or less secure knowledge until it is denied. Scientific knowledge must be capable of being put to the test, contrasted with reality to see if it fits with what experience says.

Popper considers that it is not possible to ensure knowledge no matter how much a certain event is repeated. For example, through induction, the human being knows that the sun will rise the next day for the simple fact that it has always happened that way. However, this is not a true guarantee that the same thing will actually happen.

• You may be interested in: "Karl Popper's philosophy and psychological theories"

5. thomas kuhn

This philosopher considered that what was proposed by Popper was not a sufficient reason to delimit a certain theory or knowledge as non-scientific. Kuhn believed that a good scientific theory was something very broad, precise, simple, and coherent. When applied, the scientist must go beyond mere rationality, and be prepared to find exceptions to your theory. Scientific knowledge, according to this author, is found in theory and in the rule.

In turn, Kuhn came to question the concept of scientific progress, since he believed that with the historical development of science, some scientific paradigms were replacing others, without this implying in itself an improvement with respect to what former: passing from one system of ideas to another, without these being comparable. However, the emphasis he placed on this relativistic idea varied throughout his career as a philosopher, and in his later years he displayed a less radical intellectual stance.

6. Imre Lakatos and the criteria based on scientific development

Lakatos developed the scientific research programs. These programs were sets of theories related to each other in such a way that some are derived from others.

There are two parts to these programs. On the one hand, there is the hard core, which is what the related theories share.. On the other side are the hypotheses, which constitute a protective belt for the nucleus. These hypotheses can be modified and are the ones that explain the exceptions and changes in a scientific theory.

Bibliographic references:

• Agassi, J. (1991). Popper's demarcation of science refuted. Methodology and Science, 24, 1-7.
• Bunge, M. (1982). Demarcating Science from Pseudoscience. Fundamenta Scientiae, 3. 369 - 388.
• Cover, J.A., Curd, Martin (1998) Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues.