What distinguishes science from pseudoscience? This is known as the so-called demarcation problem. This lecture is about that problem.The lecture is divided into three parts:
Why does it matter? And: an easy solution?
In this first part, I look at why it might matter to distinguish science from pseudoscience. Why care about the question? In the following you will learn about why and also about some attempts to distinguish science from pseudoscience that might seem appealing at first but on reflection don't really work.
Falsificationism
We have now seen some ideas for how science can be distinguished from pseudoscience that don't work. In the next part of the lecture, you learn about a theory that may be the most influential view on this topic: Karl Popper's "falsificationism". Learn about it and it's idea that science must in a specific sense be "courageous". (you will also learn why falsificationisn is probably false)
Real Science: research programmes and successful science
After having considered some theories about the demarkation problem that do not work, we will now look at what Lakatos and Kitcher - the two readings for this week - think about it. Their ideas about it are a bit more complicated than waht we have looked at so far. But if the simple ideas fail... Learn about their ideas here:
Take Home Question or Idea For Further Reflection:
In his article, Lakatos says that "the demarcation between science and pseudoscience is not merely a problem of armchair it is of vital social and political relevance." Where and how, in today's society, can it be important to distinguish between science and pseudoscience? Do you think his theory of how to separate them helps with those social and political problems?