View article

Is the demarcation problem dead, or are the rumors of its demise greatly exaggerated? The answer depends on whom you ask. Some philosophers of science have voiced the opinion that the demarcation project has been something of an embarrassment to their discipline and that terms like “pseudoscience” and “nonscience” should be erased from our philosophical vocabulary, wedded as they are to a naïve conception of science and its borderlines. Nowadays philosophy of science has recovered somewhat from this backlash against demarcation. In the wake of a growing consensus that there is no silver bullet to separate science from nonscience, philosophers have shifted their attention to more sophisticated ways of characterizing science and distinguishing it from different shades of nonscience (Nickles 2006; Hansson 2008, 2009; Pigliucci 2010).

The major trouble with the demarcation project, as I argue in this chapter, is that it has traditionally been the banner of two distinct but often conflated intellectual projects, only one of which is pressing and worth pursuing. The genuine demarcation problem as I see it—the one with real teeth—deals with distinguishing bona fide science from pseudoscience. The second brand of demarcationism concerns the territorial boundaries separating science from such epistemic endeavors as philosophy, history, metaphysics, and even everyday reasoning.