The Dilemma of Scientific Demarcation and Its Possible Approach

Lu Wenyan(Department of Philosophy, Xiamen University)

Abstract

From logicism to historicism, philosophers of science have put forward different standards of scientific demarcation according to their own scientific views. However, these standards encounter problems either in theory or in practice, and then fall into difficulties, thus moving towards relativism. Philosophy of scientific practice has reversed the previous image of science with scientific practice and pointed out the temporality, dynamics and locality of science. Therefore, the scientific boundary under this approach also has the above characteristics. Besides, the scientific boundary constructed by the scientific image is developmental and features temporary stability and effectiveness. Scientific demarcation is not a purely epistemological problem, but also a practical one. 

Keywords

Scientific demarcation; Philosophy of scientific practice; Practice

References

Paul Fayabend. Against Method [M]. Trans. Zhou Lvzhong. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1992.

Larry Laudan. The Demise of the Demarcation Problem [J]. Trans.Le Aiguo. Ziran Kexue Zhexue Wenti.1988(3): 20.

Zhu Fengqing.Scientific Demarcation: From One-dimensional Standards to Multi-dimensional standards [J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2008, 26 (S1): 37-40.

Hong Qian. Selected Works on Modern Western Bourgeois Philosophy [M]. Beijing: Commercial Press, 1964: 283.

Karl Popper.Conjectures and Refutations [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 2001: 361.

Thomas S. Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [M]. Trans. Jin Wulun and Hu Xinhe. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2003: 9-29.

Wang Wei. How Do We Reject Pseudoscience?—Scientific Demarcation Standards from Absolute to Multi-dimensional [J]. Studies in Science of Science, 2004 (02): 118-123.

Mario Bunge. What is False Science [J]. Scientific Research. 1987 (4): 46.

Chen Jian. Multi-dimensional Standards for Scientific Demarcation [J]. Journal of Dialectics of Nature. 1996, 18 (03).

Joseph Rouse. Knowledge and Power [M]. Trans. Sheng Xiaoming et al. Beijing: Peking University Press. 2004: Ⅴ.

Zhang Zengyi. The Century-long Debate between Creationism and Evolution [M]. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Press, 2006: 205-226.

Reichenbach H. Experience and Prediction: an Analysis of the Foundations and Structure of Knowledge [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1938.

Wu Tong et al. Returning to Scientific Practice [M]. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, September 2010.

Joseph Rouse. Engaging Science [M]. Trans. Dai Jianping. Suzhou: Suzhou University Press, 2010: 123-124.

Joseph Rouse. Knowledge and Power [M]. Trans. Sheng Xiaoming et al. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004: 106.

Joseph Rouse. Knowledge and Power [M]. Trans. Sheng Xiaoming et al. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2004: 130.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26549/jetm.v4i2.4384