Scientificity and The Law of Theory Demarcation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v2i0.31275Keywords:
theoretical scientonomy, demarcation, scientificity, epistemic stances, the law of theory demarcation, theory assessment, assessment outcomeAbstract
The demarcation between science and non-science seems to play an important role in the process of scientific change, as theories regularly transition from being considered scientific to being considered unscientific and vice versa. However, theoretical scientonomy is yet to shed light on this process. The goal of this paper is to tackle the problem of demarcation from the scientonomic perspective. Specifically, we introduce scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that an agent can take towards a theory. We contend that changes in this stance are to be traced and explained by scientonomy. Thus, we formulate a new law of theory demarcation to account for changes in scientificity within the scientonomic framework.
Suggested Modifications
[Sciento-2018-0013]: Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories.
Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry:
- Scientificity: How should scientificity be defined?
- Scientificity of Methods: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards methods? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific methods?
- Scientificity of Questions: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards questions? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific questions?
[Sciento-2018-0014]: Accept the following law as a new scientonomic axiom:
- The Law of Theory Demarcation: if a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain.
Accept that the law of theory demarcation is not a tautology.
Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry:
- Indicators of Theory Scientificity: What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? Can traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journals be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place?
- Indicators of Conclusiveness for Scientificity Assessment: What are the historical indicators that an assessment by the demarcation criteria was conclusive or inconclusive? Does the lack of agreement or evidence count in favor of inconclusive assessment outcome?
Downloads
References
Anderson, P. F. (1983). Marketing, Scientific Progress, and Scientific Method. Journal of Marketing 47(4), pp. 18-31.
Baigrie, B.S. (1988). Siegel on the Rationality of Science. Philosophy of Science 55(3), pp. 435-441.
Barseghyan, H. (2015). The Laws of Scientific Change. Springer.
Bennett, C. H. & Brassard, G. (1985). An Update on Quantum Cryptography. In Blakley & Chaum (Eds.) (1985), pp. 475-480.
Blakley, G. R. & Chaum, D. (Eds.) (1985). Advances in Cryptology. Springer.
Brown, S. (1996). Art or Science? Fifty Years of Marketing Debate. Journal of Marketing Management 12(4), pp. 243-267.
Chang, H. (2012). Scientific Pluralism and the Mission of History and Philosophy of Science. Inaugural Lecture. Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGUsIf9qYw8.
Collins, F. S.; Morgan, M. & Patrinos, A. (2003). The Human Genome Project: Lessons from Large-Scale Biology. Science 300(5617), pp. 286-290.
Curry, P. (1986). The Decline of Astrology in Early Modern England, 1642–1800. A Ph.D. thesis submitted to the Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University College London.
Dawid, R. (2013). String Theory and the Scientific Method. Cambridge University Press.
Dawkins, R. (1986). The Blind Watchmaker. Penguin.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. The Sciences 35(3), pp. 34-40.
Derksen, A. A. (1993). The Seven Sins of Pseudo-Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24(1), pp. 17-42.
Eldredge, N. & Gould, S.J. (1972). Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism. In Schopf (Ed.) (1972), pp. 82-115.
Fara, P. (2003). Marginalized Practices. In Porter (Ed.) (2003), pp. 485-507.
Hansson, S. O. (2009). Cutting the Gordian Knot of Demarcation. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23(3), pp. 237-243.
Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science and Pseudo-Science. In Zalta, E. (Ed.) (2017). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/.
Harnad, J. (2008). Review of: The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. The Mathematical Intelligencer 30(3), pp. 66-69.
Hartle, J. B. (2006). General Relativity in the Undergraduate Physics Curriculum. American Journal of Physics 74(1), pp. 14-21.
Jagannathan, K. (2006). Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law; The Trouble with Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next. Physics Today 59(12), pp. 57-58.
Kumar, S. & Moore, K. B. (2002). The Evolution of Global Positioning System (GPS) Technology. Journal of Science Education and Technology 11(1), pp. 59-80.
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. In Lakatos (1978), pp. 8-101.
Lakatos, I. (1978). Philosophical Papers. Volume I. Cambridge University Press.
Lavelle, S. & D’ari, R. (1996). The New Scientific Spirit. BioEssays 18(7), pp. 603-606.
Lombrozo, T.; Thanukos, A. & Weisberg, M. (2008). The Importance of Understanding the Nature of Science for Accepting Evolution. Evolution: Education and Outreach 1(3), pp. 290-298.
Malomo, O. A.; Idowu, O. E. & Osuagwu, F. C. (2006). Lessons from History: Human Anatomy, from the Origin to the Renaissance. International Journal of Morphology 24, pp. 99-104.
Marshall, S. (2012). Science, Pseudo-Science and Urban Design. Urban Design International 17(4), pp. 257-271.
Musielak, D. (2014). Euler: Genius Blind Astronomer Mathematician. ArXiv:1406.7397 [Math]. Retrieved from http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.7397.
Osler, M. J. (1998). Mixing Metaphors: Science and Religion or Natural Philosophy and Theology in Early Modern Europe. History of Science 36(1), pp. 91-113.
Park, K. & Daston, L. (Eds.) (2008). The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 3: Early Modern Science. Cambridge University Press.
Patton, P.; Overgaard, N. & Barseghyan, H. (2017). Reformulating the Second Law. Scientonomy 1, pp. 29-39. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/27158.
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge.
Porter, R. (Ed.). (2003). The Cambridge History of Science. Volume 4: Eighteenth-Century Science. Cambridge University Press.
Rawleigh, W. (2018). The Status of Questions in the Ontology of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 2, pp. 1-12. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/29651.
Rutkin, H. D. (2008). Astrology. In Park & Daston (Eds.) (2008), pp. 541-561.
Schopf, T.J.M. (Ed.) (1972). Models in Paleobiology. Freeman, Cooper & Co.
Scott, H. (2007). Stephen Jay Gould and the Rhetoric of Evolutionary Theory. Rhetoric Review 26(2), pp. 120-141.
Sebastien, Z. (2016). The Status of Normative Propositions in the Theory of Scientific Change. Scientonomy 1, pp. 1-9. Retrieved from https://www.scientojournal.com/index.php/scientonomy/article/view/26947.
Thagard, P. R. (1978). Why Astrology is a Pseudoscience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1978, pp. 223-234.
Wilson, C. (2003). Astronomy and Cosmology. In Porter (Ed.) (2003), pp. 328-353.
Wisniak, J. (2004). Phlogiston: The Rise and Fall of a Theory. Indian Journal of Chemical Technology 11(5), pp. 732-743. Retrieved from http://nopr.niscair.res.in/handle/123456789/9538.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Patrick Thomas Fraser, Ameer Sarwar
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
