Scientists’ Perspectives on the Demarcation Problem
Mustafa Efe Ateş, Mehmet İnce, Cenk Barın BoraThe demarcation problem, concerning the establishment of a specific criterion for distinguishing science from non-science or pseudoscience, stands as one of the central issues in the philosophy of science. Considering the extant body of literature, philosophers, particularly those specializing in the philosophy of science, gain insight into the nature of science through logical language analysis and/or historical examination. In doing so, they aim to demarcate science from other pursuits. Nevertheless, this paper takes a distinct approach, diverging from the conventional viewpoint of philosophers and instead adopting the perspective of scientists. To achieve this, we conducted a series of qualitative interviews involving 30 scientists, each of whom holds a professorship in their respective fields. By conducting these interviews, we aimed to reveal the scientists’ perspectives on the demarcation problem and then evaluate their viewpoints. Following the evaluation of these perspectives, three key findings became evident. First, a significant majority of the responses obtained regarding the demarcation problem align well with prevailing philosophical views found in the existing literature. The responses that closely match the dominant philosophical approaches have been highlighted in the article’s thematic sections. Second, a lack of consensus also exists among scientists regarding the demarcation problem, similar to the lack of consensus among philosophers. However, despite this absence of agreement, a balance appears to exist between different conflicting viewpoints among scientists. Third and finally, scientists generally lack strong familiarity with the fundamental philosophical issues related to the demarcation problem. Although this finding relies on non-quantitative measures, detailed analysis supports this conclusion. Based on these findings, we conclude that adopting different approaches to conducting interviews could lead to more nuanced outcomes.
Bilim İnsanlarının Perspektifinden Sınırlandırma Problemi
Mustafa Efe Ateş, Mehmet İnce, Cenk Barın BoraBilim felsefesinin en temel problemlerinden biri olan sınırlandırma problemi belirli bir ölçüt vasıtası ile bilimi, bilimsel olmayan ya da sahte/sözde bilim olan etkinliklerden ayırt edip edemeyeceğimizi konu edinmektedir. Literatüre baktığımızda felsefeciler –özellikle bilim felsefecileri– bilimin doğasını karakterize etme girişiminde bulunurken bilim dilinin mantıksal yapısına ya da bilimin tarihsel süreçlerine odaklanarak, bilimi bilimsel olmayan ya da sahte-bilim olan etkinliklerden ayırt etmişlerdir. Bu çalışma ise farklı bir yaklaşım benimseyerek sınırlandırma problemine, felsefecilerin değil, bilim insanlarının perspektifi ile bakmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu sebeple alanında deneyimli ve çeşitli bilim dallarında profesör olan otuz bilim insanı ile niteliksel araştırma yöntemlerinden biri olan yapılandırılmış görüşme tekniği uygulanmıştır. Bu görüşmeler aracılığıyla bilim insanlarının sınırlandırma problemi hususunda öne sürdükleri görüşler açığa çıkartılıp değerlendirilmiştir. Değerlendirme neticesinde üç temel bulguya ulaşılmıştır. İlki, sınırlandırma problemine ilişkin sorularımıza bilim insanları tarafından getirilen yanıtların birçoğu temel felsefi yaklaşımlarla uyuşmaktadır. Elde ettiğimiz verileri farklı temalar altında analiz ettiğimiz bu çalışmada, sınırlandırma problemine dair yaygın felsefi görüşlerin, bilim insanlarının görüşleri ile anlamlı benzerlikler taşıdığı kısımlar vurgulanmıştır. İkincisi, sınırlandırma problemi ve bu problemlerle ilişkili diğer meseleler üzerinde felsefi olarak sağlanamayan uzlaşma, bilim insanları arasında da mevcuttur. Ne var ki bu ihtilaf dengeli bir biçimdedir, öyle ki benzer yanıtlara sahip olan bilim insanları baskın bir grup sayısına ulaşmamıştır. Üçüncü ve son olarak, bilim insanlarının bilim felsefesinin temel problemlerine yüksek oranda yabancı olduğu görülmektedir. Bu bulgu, her ne kadar nicel olmayan bir yolla ölçülmüşse de verilerin dikkatli analizi durumun bu yönde olduğunu göstermektedir. Tüm bu temel bulgular ışığında, genel değerlendirmemiz, farklı türden yapılandırılmış görüşmelerin çok daha detaylı sonuçlar temin edebileceğidir.
Science has certain unique characteristics that set it apart from other fields of intellectual activity or inquiry. While this may seem intuitively true, providing a justification for this assertion is philosophically important. For decades, philosophers have tried to justify this claim by developing criteria for demarcating science from non-science and its undesirable offshoot (i.e., pseudoscience). Each proposed criterion has been subject to both support and criticism, giving rise to a rich body of literature commonly referred to as the demarcation problem.
For certain, valid, and good reasons, the demarcation problem has primarily been the subject of study by philosophers. However, this study takes a different approach, shifting the issue from the philosophers’ domain to that of scientists. To clarify, this study aims to understand how experienced scientists from different disciplines view the problem of demarcation.
To explore the views of scientists regarding a philosophical issue such as demarcation may not appear significant at first glance. Upon closer examination, however, one can draw specific positive lessons from such research. Philosophical studies can benefit from scientists’ views in an informative way. Directing fundamental questions such as “What is science?” or “Is there a criterion for demarcating science from other domains?” to different yet relevant interviewees may enrich the traditional philosophical discussion on the problem. Furthermore, the answers obtained from scientists who are actively engaged in science could lead to the revision of concepts used by philosophers. In turn, this has the potential to make ongoing philosophical debates more meaningful. Therefore, this paper not only aims to examine the demarcation problem from scientists’ perspectives but also strives to contribute to the debates revolving around the problem.
In the first section of this paper, we provide a brief history of the demarcation problem, focusing on its significance and evolution. This historical introduction is not detailed because presenting the evolution of the problem from logical positivism to the present day is beyond the scope of our purposes. Nevertheless, we believe that this introductory overview will guide readers through the rest of the paper. In the second section, we elaborate on the paper’s methodology and the data we obtained. We employed the qualitative method known as the structured interview technique. This methodology is advantageous because it allows the interviewees to express their subjective experiences and personal thoughts. In this way, we aim to capture and evaluate scientists’ perspectives in their own words. Interviews were conducted with 30 scientists who were divided into two main groups: 15 natural scientists and 15 social scientists. The group of natural scientists contains an even distribution across various disciplines, including physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy and space sciences, and geology, with three representatives from each field. Similarly, among the social scientists, we ensured an equal distribution of three sociologists, three psychologists, three economists, three historians, and three archaeologists.
In the third section, we examine and evaluate the responses to the interview questions we posed, especially focusing on those that we found interesting using comparisons and contrasts. After asking introductory questions to assess the interviewees’ expertise, we moved on to the five main questions about the demarcation problem. These five questions constitute the core of this research. The first question addresses whether a fundamental difference exists between scientific and non-scientific activities. The second question explores the relationship, if any, between science and nonscience. The third question is more open-ended and asks the interviewees to describe the basic features of science. The fourth question inquires about why so-called pseudoscientific subjects are not taught at the university level in Türkiye. The fifth question examines the importance of the demarcation problem and whether the interviewees perceive it to be significant.
In the final section, we list the main findings and provide suggestions for further studies similar to ours. We have identified three primary findings. First, many of the thoughts the scientists expressed align with the philosophical views found in the literature. Second, no consensus was found among the scientists regarding the demarcation problem, which seems to reflect the lack of consensus among philosophers. Third, most of the scientists we interviewed, with a few exceptions, were unfamiliar with the main topics in the philosophy of science. When considering these overall findings, we conclude that differently structured interviews could improve data quality, leading to more justified responses. Improved data quality could positively impact the enrichment of philosophical perspectives on the demarcation problem. Therefore, integrating more qualitative research into the methodology of the philosophy of science appears to be essential.
