Demarcation Criterion

Demarcation Criterion

The problem of demarcation is concerned, within the philosophy of science, the question of defining the limits to be set up the concept of “science ". The boundaries are often drawn between what is scientific and unscientific, between science and pseudoscience, and between science and religion. The approach of this problem known as pervasive problem of demarcation covers these three cases. The pervasive problem, ultimately, what he is to find criteria to decide between two theories given, which one is more "scientific." This paper describes the concept of Demarcation Criterion, Kapr Popper views and analysis of Demarcation Criterion, as well as the contributions of Demarcation Criterion. After more than a century of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, and despite a broad consensus on the general basis of the scientific method, the boundaries that demarcate what is science and what is not is still debated (Shearmur, 1996). Having a solution to the demarcation criterion is important not only in the theoretical, from a strictly philosophical dimension, it is important in practical, everyday fields.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has a lot to do with criticism, censorship and intolerance in scientific research (Lloyd, 1979). The theory of Copernicus was condemned to the index of ideas and works prohibitive by the Catholic Church had political power and "scientific" (1616) because it was said pseudo (the Earth was no longer the center of the Universe). The Communist Party of the USSR stated (1949) to pseudo-Mendelian genetics as "reactionary bourgeois" - and told his supporters and Vavilov to die in concentration camps (Shearmur, 1996). In the words of Lakatos, the problem of the distinction between scientific and pseudoscientific "is a pseudo-philosophers for games, but has serious ethical and political implications."

The first example in history on the issue of categorization and demarcation of human knowledge in ancient Greece, where is the problem of differences between true knowledge and opinion (Lloyd, 1998). For Plato, for example, can only have epistemic development in the world of ideas (pure intellectual knowledge) but not the sensible world, which he says is misleading (see Allegory of the Cave). Later, Kant tried to define the natural sciences the metaphysical, and his work set a precedent methodology to establish the criteria for demarcation of what is and is not science natural (Resnik, 2002). David Hume (1711-1776), provides the theoretical anti-metaphysicians who have great influence on logical positivism. It is in the Vienna Circle of Rudolf Carnap (1891-1970), Alfred Jules Ayer (1910-1989), and Karl R. Popper (1902-1994), where he will address the "Criterion of Demarcation" of science from metaphysics (Forster, 2009).

On several occasions, notably in his intellectual autobiography, Karl Popper explains how he managed to establish his famous line test - which is both a methodology for contemporary science as a test of objectification of the history of science. Popper wanted to distinguish dogma from critical thinking, subjectivity from objectivity, & science from psuedoscience Impressed by the Einsteinian revolution in physics, and exasperated by the ...