Great article by Henry Bauer about the unsolvability of the demarcation problem and the implications this has for people who think otherwise.
For something like a century, scientists, philosophers of science, and many other scholars have grappled with this question: What criteria, principles, rules, or behavior characterize science by contrast to all other things? What exactly is “not-science”, in other words? What exactly is “pseudo-science”?
The upshot of these many decades of suggestions and discussions and argumentation among the most well-informed specialists is that
NO COMBINATION OF CRITERIA, PRINCIPLES, RULES, or BEHAVIOR
CAN DISTINGUISH SCIENCE UNEQUIVOCALLY
from NON-SCIENCE or from “PSEUDO-SCIENCE”
The classic summation of failed attempts is Larry Laudan’s “The demise of the demarcation problem” . Even those who don’t agree that the issue is at a dead end  attempt to find a practical distinction by means of “family resemblances” or “fuzzy logic”, thereby acknowledging that the distinction can only be approximate, probabilistic, never a definitive one: no hard-and-fast, unequivocally valid set of criteria is able to identify an instance…
View original post 1,383 more words