Here is a summary of problem 5, block 2.3. It has been edited after the post discussion so only relevant information is included. All sources and materials are included in the summaries. I got full marks in this course. My average was a 10.
The purpose of demarcations
Theoretical POV - The demarcation issue is an illuminating perspective that
contributes to the philosophy of science
- same way that the study of fallacies contributes to the study of informal logic
and rational argumentation
practical POV - The distinction is important for decision guidance in both private and
public life
- since science is almost reliable source of knowledge in a wide variety of areas, we
need to distinguish scientific knowledge from its look-alikes
1. healthcare - Medical science develops and evaluates treatments according to the
evidence of their effectiveness
pseudoscience can give rise to ineffective and dangerous interventions
2. expert testimony - it is essential for the rule of law that court gets the facts right. the
reliability of evidence must be correctly determined, expert testimony must be
based on the best available knowledge
court must be able to distinguish between science and pseudoscience
3. environmental policies - In order to be safe from potential disasters it may be
legitimate to take preventive measures when there is valid yet insufficient evidence
of an environmental hazard
this must be distinguished from taking measures against an alleged hazard
for which there is no valid evidence at all
4. science education - the promoters of some pseudo Sciences (creationism) try to
introduce their teachings in school curricula
teachers and school authorities need to have clear criteria of inclusion that
protect students against unreliable and disproved teachings
5. journalism - when there is scientific uncertainty, or relevant disagreement in the
scientific community, this should be covered and explained immediate reports on
the issues in question
differences in opinion between legitimate scientific experts and proponents
of scientifically unsubstantiated claims should be described as what they are
the media need tools and practises to distinguish between legitimate science
controversies and attempts to peddle pseudoscience claims as science
The ‘science’ of pseudoscience
Science can be described as partly descriptive and partly normative
when something is described as science it usually involves an acknowledgement that
it has a positive role in our strivings for knowledge
the concept of science has been formed through a historical process, and many
contingencies influence what we call and do not call science
a definition of science has to go in either of 2 directions:
- descriptive contents- specify how the term is actually used
- normative elements- clarify the more fundamental meaning of the term (more
popular in philosophy). It involves some degree of idealisation in relation to
common usage of the term ‘science’
, ‘science’ is primarily used about the natural sciences and other fields of research
that are similar
- Political economy and sociology science
- Literature and history not science
Wissenschaft- german for science – included all academic specialities (inc.
humanities)
- Better at delimiting the type of systematic knowledge that is at stake between
science and pseudoscience
Community of knowledge disciplines- natural and social sciences and the humanities
that are all part of systematic and critical investigations aimed at acquiring the best
possible understanding of the workings of nature, people, and human society
The ‘pseudo’ of pseudoscience
Non-,un-, and pseudoscience
Not all non-science is pseudoscience
Parascience – all non-scientific practices that are not pseudoscientific
Science has the internal demarcation problem of distinguishing between good and
bad science
Unscientific- a narrower concept than “non-scientific” (not scientific)
- since unscientific implies some form of contradiction or conflict with science
Pseudoscientific- a narrower concept that “unscientific”
- unscientific covers inadvertent mismeasurements and miscalculations and other
forms of bad science performed by scientists who are recognised as trying but
failing to produce good science
Etymology – pseudo means false
- A pretended or spurious science – a collection of related beliefs about the world
mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status
that scientific truths now have
Non-science posing as science
To be pseudoscientific, an activity or teaching has to satisfy the following two
criteria:
1. It is not scientific – central to the concerns of the philosophy of science
2. Its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific –
philosophically less important
The doctrinal component
The definition based on 1 and 2 Is too wide
there are phenomena that satisfy both criteria but are not ‘pseudoscientific’
- e.g. fraud in science - has a high degree of scientific pretence and yet does not
comply with science
- Nevertheless, fraud in otherwise legitimate branches of science is never called
pseudoscience
Hypothetical examples:
1. case 1 - A biochemist performs an experiment that she interprets as showing a
particular protein has an essential role in muscle contraction. there is a
, consensus among her colleagues that the result is a mere artefact, due to
experimental error
2. case 2 - a biochemist goes on performing one sloppy experiment after the other.
She consistently interprets them as showing a particular protein has a role in
muscle contraction not accepted by other scientists
3. case 3 - a biochemist performs very sloppy experiments in different areas. One is
the experiment to refer to in case one. Much of her work is of the same quality.
She does not propagate any particular unorthodox theory
1 and 3 are regarded as cases of bad science, 2 is a case of pseudoscience
- this is because there is a deviant doctrine present in case 2
Deviant doctrine- isolated breaches of the requirements of science are not
commonly regarded as pseudoscientific but a sustained effort to promote
standpoints different from those that have scientific legitimacy at the time is
pseudoscience
- Explains why fraud in science is not usually regarded as pseudoscientific - they
aren't generally associated with a deviant doctrine
The term science has both an individuated and an unindividuated sense
- Individuated sense - Biochemistry and astronomy are different Sciences, one of
which includes studies of muscle contraction and the other studies of
supernovae
It is defined as ‘a particular branch of knowledge or study; a recognised
Department of learning’
- unindividuated sense - the study of muscle proteins and that of supernovae are
parts of ‘one and the same’ science
‘the kind of knowledge or intellectual activity of which the various
‘Sciences’ are examples’
Pseudoscience is an antithesis of science in the individuated rather than the
unindividuated sense
- there is no corpus of pseudoscience corresponding with the corpus of science
new 2 = 2’ – ‘It is part of an non-scientific doctrine whose major proponents try to
create the impression that it is scientific’
a wider sense of pseudoscience
contrary to 2’ Doctrines that conflict with science are sometimes called
pseudoscientific in spite of not being advanced as scientific
Grove - Included among the pseudoscientific doctrines those that purport to offer
alternative accounts to those of science or claim to explain what science cannot
explain
Lugg – maintained that ‘the clairvoyant’s Predictions are pseudoscientific whether or
not they are correct
- despite the fact that most clairvoyants do not profess to be practitioners of
science
- pseudoscience is assumed to include not only doctrines country to science
proclaimed to be scientific but doctrines contrary to science tout court, whether
or not they are put forward in the name of science
2 = 2” - It is part of a doctrine whose major proponents try to create the impression
that it represents the most reliable knowledge on its subject matter
Voordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper LRV31. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €6,49. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
