It seems as though these individuals are going beyond the scientific method, by making claims that aren't scientifically verifiable about the truth of philosophy (even though science isn't primarily concerned about what is truth but rather the results of expirements and predictions that depend on metaphysical and frameworks about truth and axioms that value ethics, speciifically the virtue of looking for truth), — Shushi

I've said this many times on the forum. Here I go again - The scientific method is epistemology, i.e. philosophy. It wasn't established based on scientific principles, that would be an endless loop. I think you'll have a hard time getting most hard scientists to agree with that.

On the other hand, I have a lot of sympathy for those who practice the scientific method on a professional or academic level - much of philosophy is baloney. Philosophers love to tie little nitpicky knots with words that have no significant impact or even meaning.

I always have thought that metaphysics itself was not a meaningful term, but a chapter heading that followed Physics in a book written by Aristotle. — god must be atheist

See @tim wood's reference to Collingwood's "An Essay on Metaphysics" above. He originally steered me towards the essay and I've found it very helpful. The word "metaphysics" can have a very clear, specific, even technical meaning. I like Collingwood's explication of what he thinks it is.

Ask them if the wavefunction is metaphysical and see what they say. — Wallows

Certainly much of cosmology in physics is metaphysics discussion. QM raises a lot of metaphysics issues. And if this seems distant, it's not. QM based phenomena affect large organisms, like birds and plants and perhaps for things. IOW a bird will change course due to qm phenomena inside its visual system. And any attempt to be objective is necessarily working with metaphysics. — Coben

I think these types of statements are another reason why scientists don't take philosophy seriously - they demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to acknowledge there is a true and (sometimes) clear separation between metaphysics and science. One, perhaps over-simplistic way of looking at it is that metaphysics sets the rules by which we know things and science describes what we come to know about how the world works.

Also, most people on forums are not professionals, or even learned in the topics they discuss. The participants are enthusiastic, but not trained or even smart. This applies to all specialized forums. — god must be atheist

That may be true, but respected and influential scientists, Stephen Hawking comes to mind, have indicated explicitly that philosophy does not have anything significant to offer.

Science is the structured asking and attempts to find the answers to questions. That is, to do any science, you have to ask a question (and of course there conventions and rules on how to go about science - these latter the business of scientists). — tim wood

Two comments 1) I don't think science is only or primarily about asking questions. That's more true for hard experimental sciences like particle physics but much less so for observational sciences like astronomy and evolutionary biology. Much of science is about observing the world and seeing patterns. Those patterns may lead to questions, but it's not the central activity. 2) As I said, in my view, "the conventions and rules on how to go about science" are exactly philosophy.

for example there's the irreproducibility crisis that's stagnating the scientific community as pseudoscience is garnering reputation and conflicts arise about building upon valid ideas through which a simple examination of other's frameworks, ethics, and political biases may be examined and filter those faulty papers that may be rhetorically framed through simple fallacies). — Shushi

I agree. Irreproducibility, corruption of scientific results by business and political interests, denial of established science, fraud by scientists for personal gain or advancement, sloppy methodology and poor quality control, and more are evidence of science's inability or unwillingness to take metaphysics seriously.

I think that most people will agree that information is a metaphysical entity (which "metaphysical entity" depends on what position one takes about abstract objects, which I don't think this point changes much whether one is a realist, anti-realist, nominalist, etc.). — Shushi

I don't think I agree that information is a metaphysical entity. I'll think about it more. I do think that saying that to a scientist is a good way to invite ridicule.

That is to say that if you were to ask an honest physicist what electrons were, or what is gravity, or energy, they can describe to you how they are like, but the scientific theories that describe them, do not describe them in a positive sense, as if they exist, like if one were to try to describe coldness, they can't sense that doesn't have a positive existence. — Shushi

As I said previously, I think science describes how the world works but doesn't say anything about why. Is "why" metaphysics? Maybe, but it seems to me it's more a meaningless question. But then, I guess that's a metaphysical statement.

So I challenge the two above, with between them more than 4,000 posts although not evenly divided, to do better than give a knee-jerk, "I do not think" response, and to reason it out. (I'm thinking about it - not an easy subject. It calls for at first at least some definitions.) — tim wood

My post was responsive to the OP, which asked for an opinion. It was respectful. Philosophy is all about opinions. All about what people think. Sounds like you are suggesting we substitute Kant's opinion for our own. I have never found his philosophy helpful.

Was the OP appropriately philosophical? I think it was. I challenge you to focus on your own posts and not try to enforce your personal opinions, what you think, on others. It's not welcome.

Hehe. At least you did not call me a c**t. — god must be atheist

That's more of a British thing.

This thread is interesting to me and others, if not you. You have no good reason to be disruptive. Please stop.

I don't think it's immoral, but I think it's a bad idea. It shouldn't be easy. I think palliative care makes it unnecessary in a lot of cases. I think there's a good chance of hurting those left behind. There is also definitely a risk of disposing of people who are considered inconvenient.

I don't think it should be legalized, but it would make sense as a matter of enforcement policy to make it a low priority prosecution. If it really is justified, let the criminal justice system decide. There's a risk with that, but, as I said, it shouldn't be easy.

Why even comment on this thread? Don't be an asshole. The question of the OP directly applies to you here. — schopenhauer1

I think the activities you are listing are probably different than those I was. You're planning ahead. I would think consciousness would have a much bigger role in those than the ones I discussed. I was talking about motivation that lead immediately to action. I'm sure they are different, although I'm not sure how much.

How did I decide these are the things I am going to do? When I change my mind, what priorities are more considerable than others? — schopenhauer1

When I first read @god must be atheist's post, I thought of a bumper sticker I saw recently - "Don't be a dick."

Ok, but what made you write in the first place as opposed to something else? Where does your goal and then decision to act on the goal come from? — schopenhauer1

Come on. I've written a lot trying to describe how it feels to do stuff. I've enjoyed it and it's been helpful for me to try to put into words, but it's time for you to contribute a bit more.

Hey, @fdrake, is this the direction you wanted this conversation to go? I think you need to give us more guidance. I thought you were going to come back and wave your magic data wand.

That does not include spoiling other people's fun. Life's requirements and responsibilities are simply the mechanics of the problem of how to get some more fun. Moralists find this attitude extremely disturbing. Surely life cannot be that simple. — Drazjan

I don't find it disturbing, although it doesn't seem like it would be that much fun to live for fun. That's not the way it is for some of us. Most of us.

That seems like dodging the question. — Noah Te Stroete

I don't understand how.

So you wake up and get out of bed, do some stuff which you say is habitual (brush teeth, etc.), and then do some "stuff" which you decide you want to do. Where do these decisions well up from? What is the cause? Is there a cause? How do you structure the liquid fray of all possibilities into some actual activity? — schopenhauer1

Actually, I thought of another source of motivation, although it's probably related to motivation from fear. I also find myself doing things out of boredom. Not boredom so much as an unwillingness to to be alone with myself. It's another motivation for eating. Eating sometimes (often, usually?) fulfills, satisfies some other psychological need too, although it's slippery and I have a hard time tying it down. I've always had trouble with my weight.

Anyway, back to your question. The feelings well up from inside me, where all my feelings come from. From nowhere. Not really nowhere. From the part of me that is not readily accessible to my self-awareness, although I am aware of the feelings themselves. In the cases when my heart and mind are working right, they arise directly from the motivation. The motivation and the act are the same thing. What eastern types call acting without acting. No reflection. If things aren't working right, it's a jumble of desire pushing for action counteracted by fear or conscious thought pushing back. Indecision, anxiety.

I know we're talking about motivation and this isn't the same thing, but maybe it will give a taste of what I'm talking about - Where do the words come from? In a sense, the words create consciousness, are consciousness, but their creation, for me at least, is not a conscious act. There is no voice in my head that says, write "The," write "dog," write "pissed," write "on," write "Baden's," write "foot." Again, they bubble up from inside. I sit at my computer and they pour out onto the screen. Whole thoughts, paragraphs, poems, ideas, stories come in chunks or all in one piece, often accompanied by visual images, feelings, moods. Then my fingers move and they show up in front of me. The words write themselves. Sometimes I'm amazed at what I've written. Where the hell did that come from? This is a common experience, not just for me. Again, acting without acting, writing without writing.

BTW, the raining on people's parade was self criticism. — Bitter Crank

Yes, but I felt guilty too.

What possible benefit could it have if we’re all on autopilot (unconscious motivations) — Noah Te Stroete

Our unconscious is as much us as our consciousness is. Actually, more. Just because it's not conscious doesn't mean we're not aware, that we're not responsible for what we do. Most of what we are is not conscious. This is the fundamental insight of psychology. It's what Freud gave us.

Well, if you mean that some traits are “evolutionary riders” that weren’t specifically selected for, then no, I don’t think we understand differently. Was consciousness an evolutionary rider that came along with something else that made us more successful at procreating? — Noah Te Stroete

I don't know. It seems likely that consciousness has benefits. I just think people put too much emphasis on it because it's at the center of their sense of who they are.

Good epigenetics implies good nature and good nurture. “Good” here means to me that which is valued by society. You seem more productive than me. — Noah Te Stroete

I'm have no reason to believe that's true and I'm not sure I understand its relevance to this discussion.

Same question to you then. What is the evolutionary use of consciousness? — Noah Te Stroete

I think you and I have a different understanding about how evolution works.

It sounds like you’re on autopilot a lot of the time. I’m not like that. I don’t do much. I think it’s epigenetics. Good nature and good nurture. — Noah Te Stroete

Again, I don't understand your point.

For example, did you have a good childhood? Do you have lots of good relationships? Do you enjoy your work? Is it good epigenetics? — Noah Te Stroete

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

But what about you in particular makes you more motivated than me or Schopenhauer? — Noah Te Stroete

I have no reason to believe that's true.

So you both believe that consciousness is an epiphenomen? — Noah Te Stroete

If that means I think consciousness is riding in the car, but not driving, I guess the answer is yes, mostly.

Can you give an example in "real time" how this would look in your daily life activities and decisions? — schopenhauer1

Usually, I eat lunch at sometime between noon and 1:00 pm, depending on my schedule. It's pretty automatic, habitual. It's not really driven by hunger and I generally eat the same sorts of things. Then sometimes, when I haven't eaten in a while or if I've been doing physical work, I get this feeling rising up, hunger. And I'm not just hungry, I'm often hungry for something specific, sometimes unusual. Pickles. Olives. Hummus. Then when I eat, there's a great feeling of satisfaction when I eat.

Not all of it. Not for me. I need a good reason to do a lot of things. Also, my emotions (which I’m consciously aware of), help or hinder performing a certain activity. I’m not consciously aware of which neurons fire to cause these feelings and thoughts about good or no good reasons, but that doesn’t mean that it’s all unconscious. Or did I misunderstand you? — Noah Te Stroete

Well, I don't mean someone is unaware of the feelings associated with motivation, only that they are unconscious of their source. Of course I was speaking based on my own experience, although I seriously doubt that motivation is truly generated from our conscious thoughts.

I don't know what FDrake is up to here. One should really not rain on other people's parades unnecessarily, spoiling the floats, filling the tubas with water, getting the horses all wet... — Bitter Crank

I thought you were more classically educated than that. The word "philosophy" comes from the Latin words "philos" meaning like, love, or precipitation and "sophy" meaning "study of" or "procession."

What makes you do any particular activity throughout your daily life? — schopenhauer1

There's really only one thing I do on a frequent basis that involves an act of will. That's getting up in the morning when I don't want to. Recently, there is another one. I broke some ribs, so now it hurts to get up out of my chair sometimes. When I know it's going to hurt, it takes an act of will (or a full bladder) to get me to move.

Some things I do automatically unless something stops me, e.g. brush my teeth, take my pills, drink iced coffee and eat yogurt for breakfast.

A lot of things I do out of fear, although fewer than before now that I've mostly retired. Fear of other people's expectations. Their opinion of me.

All of these are artificial forms of motivation. Habit. External. There's another kind. It's the way I know all motivation should be. I picture it as a spring bubbling up from underground - somewhere inside me. It's the kind of motivation that feels right, that makes me happy. I know it's from the best, truest part of me. But it's hard. The signal is easy to disrupt - that's what the other types of motivation are - disruptions of the way I know I'm supposed to act.

It's completely unconscious. I guess it's what Taoists call acting without acting. I don't think any true motivation comes from conscious thought. Thought can stop or guide action, but it can't provide the fuel. That's why I think all the questions and controversies about consciousness are overblown. They miss the point.

When throwing billions of years one has to be cautious: — ssu

It is my impression that @fdrake doesn't want us to get caught up in this issue. I think he has other fish to poach.

Not necessarily. Our light is just luminous energy expelled from certain interactions of form-configurations. That other universe would have theirs, too. — BrianW

Yeah, ok.

Finding your personal salvation (whatever that is) will be no easier here, there, or anywhere else. — Bitter Crank

If you buy the idea that philosophy can help guide us on the path to salvation, which I do, then which philosophy you pick can be important. I find that eastern philosophies are much more in tune with the way I understand the world than western ones are. This has nothing to do with any moral problems with the western way of seeing things. Also, I don't deny that my outlook is a western one. I started out intellectually with science, math, and engineering. That led me straight to Taoism, although it would be silly to call myself anything other than a dabbler. It has had a big effect on my intellectual and psychological development

Also, there's an advantage to trying out approaches that are different from those you grew up in - it's easier to see and avoid the philosophical and religious pitfalls and illusions. You get to choose what you follow and what you don't. Of course that means that Buddhism in Asia is different, maybe even more, than Buddhism in America. So be it.

Edit - sorry. , changed "less" to "more."

And here I would like to bring up my fourth 'misgiving' with Buddhism. Namely, the concept of suffering or dukkha. Now, I have no reason to suffer if I was a dolphin. I would simply adhere to what Nature dictates that I do. But... people, on the other hand, complain and moan and beat their chests with how much suffering they have gone through or expect to encounter. Why is that? It's somewhat perplexing that anyone should complain about their suffering. — Wallows

The idea of suffering is at the heart of Buddhism. The first of the Four Noble Truths in Tibetan Buddhism is the truth of suffering. There's no way around it. From what you say, I don't think you understand what it means in this context.

And no, I'm not a Buddhist, but I know what suffering is as discussed here. I have felt that suffering.

My next post in the thread will actually look at two examples in a different context of how 'extinction events' like that can get internalised as a sensitivity, or treated as an indifference to functioning. — fdrake

I look forward to your next post, as usual. Generally it takes till your third or fourth post in a thread before you leave me behind. I'll try to keep up.

A drop of water is falling (from a tap, a leaky pipe, cloud, etc, doesn't matter from where). The distance is such that it takes one second of time from release until it meets the ground. Now, suppose that this drop of water is a universe with life-sustaining spheres with such micro (from our point of view) elements and organisms whose frequency of vibration and life is such that, in that one second, everything evolves from beginning to end (from the "big bang" to the "last hush" just like our universe supposedly will). — BrianW

To get all meta, one problem with this scenario is that the speed of light would be the same in this universe as it would be in ours. Since all interaction takes place at speeds no greater than the speed of light, there would not be enough time for even the most basic processes. They'd never get past the first second of the big bang. Although, I guess, their scientists could talk about the "Big Splash" as the beginning of their universe. Nah, I still don't think it would work.

But I guess it would be possible if we are the ones in the drop of water.

My roots tremble, I wonder what comes next? — fdrake

Love the story, although I said "I should notify @Baden, fdrake has finally snapped. We've been expecting that." Then I was relieved to find you back on more familiar fdrake ground in your second post.

A concern - at first I thought it was a quibble, but I convinced myself it's not. A billion years is just orders of magnitude too long. The other processes you describe - soil formation, jungle growth - operate on a scale of tens or hundreds of years. You left out other, very significant processes that also operate on much shorter time scales, e.g. rainfall cycles, ice ages, soil depletion, climate change, human encroachment, continental uplift, the movement of continents, asteroid strikes. In the context of a billion years, all of these except maybe the last three would be first order Markovian effects.

Or maybe that was part of your point, I'm not sure.

This just came to mind. It was probably my favorite thread in all the time I've been on the forum - Beautiful Things. Even tough I started it, I found the contributions others made moving and inspiring. Thought provoking.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2678/beautiful-things/p1

I think we've taken this discussion as far as we can. I feel that I've made a good case for my position. I'm not sure I can do better. You're unconvinced.

I feel good about our conversation. I got a chance to lay out my own beliefs. I found some weaknesses in my understanding that I plan to work on. All in all, it was satisfying.

On the book, which I have been reading which is called philosophy for teens. It says that according Plato "love is rational because it is always directed toward true beauty.True beauty is not something your see or feel. Rather, you come to know it exists by doing philosophy -- that is, by thinking about it". — Sameer

One thing you should definitely do is go directly to the source and not depend on what someone else says Plato said. When I go to an original source on anything, I'm almost always surprised by what I find. Check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it should steer toward some good sources.

It's Laudan not Lauden (you made the mistake twice so I'm mentioning it). — leo

I will try to spell it right from now on.

I don't know why you pretend there is no problem if you're not even willing to read the paper or other sources on the demarcation problem. — leo

A reasonable request. I read the entry in Wikipedia. As you suggested, I also read the first several and the concluding paragraphs of the Laudan paper. Then I scanned the rest quickly to see if it covered anything substantially different than Wikipedia.

There are activites and theories that are called 'science'. There are activities and theories that are called 'non-science'. Why the former are called 'science' and why the latter are called 'non-science' is the problem. If there are no consistent criteria that are applied to classify something as 'science' and something else as 'non-science', then that means activities and theories are classified as 'science' or 'non-science' arbitrarily. The problem with that is then that it is not justified to dismiss something by labeling it 'non-science' if that label was assigned arbitrarily, and that knowledge labeled 'scientific' is not inherently more valid than knowledge labeled 'unscientific' so scientists and people should stop pretending that it is. — leo

I don't see calling some things science and some non-science as a problem. One of Laudan's points is that it makes sense to talk about well founded knowledge rather than science. I made it clear in my previous posts that I don't think science is the only legitimate path to knowledge. That doesn't mean making the distinction between science and other knowledge doesn't make sense. I think it does. And as I said, I don't think it's all that hard to do.

Whether or not some activities are identified as science or non-science incorrectly in practice, I don't think it's all that hard in concept. There's science; good science and bad science; and non-science; well-founded and poorly-founded. I don't really like the word pseudo-science, it's too easy to throw around without serious thought, but I understand the point it's users are trying to make, i.e. there are people who use the trappings of science without the rigor to misrepresent the level of justification for their ideas.

In order to say that they don't apply the legitimate tools of science, you would have to describe what are these legitimate tools of science, and show that what we call science applies these tools, and that what we call non-science doesn't apply these tools. If we can't do that, if there are things we call science even though they don't apply these tools, or if there are things we call non-science even though they apply these tools, then these tools aren't criteria that distinguish science from non-science, and then it is false to say that something is called pseudoscience because it doesn't apply these tools. Do you not see the problem? — leo

I think I have described the legitimate tools, although not in detail. Going into detail about what constitutes the scientific method is biting off a big chunk. Is this the place to do it?

Considering that "the Earth is at the center of the Universe", "there is no dark matter", "there is no dark energy", "we are brains in vats", "we live in a computer simulation", "the Universe was created 10000 years ago" all can be made to fit the current observations, I would say it is pretty justified to say that "plenty of different theories fit the same evidence". — leo

The ideas that the Earth is the center of the universe and the universe was created 10,000 years ago can not "be made to fit the current observations." That's why they are not longer widely accepted as fact. As for brains in vats and computer simulations, those are philosophers fantasies developed to undermine the certainty of all knowledge. That's fine, but it's not what we're talking about. As for dark matter, as I said, there is well-founded observational evidence that there is more matter in the universe than has been observed. That's all the term "dark matter" means. It is a descriptive term. Something of the sort is needed to match current observations. If it doesn't exist, we'll have to abandon or heavily modify other currently well-founded theories, e.g. general relativity or the expansion of the universe. To the best of our current knowledge, it exists. What dark matter is is a big question. Neutrinos have been suggested. Also some exotic not previously observed type of matter. I don't know anything about dark energy, but I think the situation is probably the same.

It's called the underdetermination of scientific theories, it is widely acknowledged, but in an ideal world I wouldn't even have to say that it is widely acknowledged in order for my interlocutor to consider it seriously. — leo

Underdetermination is a weakness in a theory. It indicates it does not correctly address all evidence - that there is uncertainty. Good science acknowledges the weakness and uncertainty in it's conclusions.

The same is done in astrology, ufology, ESP research, telekinesis research, homeopathy, acupuncture, free energy research, Loch Ness research, ... — leo

I believe this is not true. As I indicated previously, I've done some reading in this area, but not a lot. Do you know of specific research that has found well-founded evidence for ESP or telekinesis? If so, let's discuss it.

If you say all of them are science, on what basis do you say that they have been shown to be false but not dark matter? There is a double standard there, if an experiment in one of these fields doesn't match what's predicted then the whole field is dismissed, whereas spending enormous resources for over 20 years on dark matter while systematically failing to detect it doesn't refute dark matter in any way, instead it's a reason to keep making more and more experiments. I'll tell you what the difference is, belief, they believe they will find dark matter, but they don't believe they will find any of the other effects I mentioned, so they research dark matter and not these other phenomena. It's not a difference in methodology, it's not a difference in the fruitfulness (actually there are more fruitful results in many of these fields than in dark matter research), it's belief, they look for what they believe, and they call it science, and they call what they don't believe non-science or pseudoscience. — leo

As I said, there is strong evidence that there is extra matter in the universe that we haven't directly observed. It's been given the name "dark matter" because 1) there is evidence it's there and 2) we can't observe it. As I said, if it's not there, we have to discard very well established scientific principles. It's worth it to keep looking. Show me evidence it's worth it to continue trying to establish ESP or astrology and we can discuss it.

That's not right, he doesn't have to rigorously define what 'science' is if his point is that it can't be done (or at best that despite all efforts throughout history no one has yet determined its characteristic features), when he uses the word 'science' he refers to the activities and theories that are usually classified as 'science'. The point is why such-and-such activity or theory is labeled science rather than non-science? — leo

This is deeply ironic. Of course he has to rigorously define the problem. You and Lauden complain about this so-called "demarcation problem" but you aren't willing to do the work to deal with it. People's unwillingness or inability is the demarcation problem.

That's not my experience. People who believe in theories that scientists despise are usually much more respectful, it's the scientists who attack them ferociously, and then they have to defend themselves. Scientists and their followers do a lot to ridicule and dismiss and silence alternative views by calling them pseudoscience and a lot of other derogatory terms.

Saying something is supported by science or by scientists is a big selling point in advertising and politics, they wouldn't keep doing it if it didn't work on many people. — leo

You seem to be arguing against statements I never made and don't endorse. I do agree that some - many, most? - scientists can be arrogant and condescending.

They are all called pseudoscience by the scientific community, that is non-science. If you fail to see that then you'll fail to see the demarcation problem. — leo

They are called pseudoscience because their practitioners pretend that it's science but don't apply the legitimate tools of science. Maybe "pretend" is the wrong word. I don't think most of them are liars, I think they're incompetent and ignorant.

And so-called scientific theories are not shown to be true either, they are shown to fit the evidence, but plenty of different theories fit the same evidence. — leo

I'll use my favorite quote from Stephen Jay Gould again. I've used it at least once this week. He is referring to biological evolution - “In science, ‘fact’ can only mean ‘confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.’”

No, it is not true that "plenty of different theories fit the same evidence."

No they surely haven't been shown to be false. If you care to explain what makes you think that they are false, I can explain why they aren't. Note that falsified doesn't mean proven false, a theory can always be saved from falsification. — leo

True, logically (and trivially) you can't prove a negative, but I think Gould's standard applies here as much as it does for positive assertions. False can only mean ‘refuted to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional rejection.’”

Why have all scientists and philosophers failed for centuries then? Laudan addresses how all attempts have failed, his paper is a great read if you give it the time, otherwise there are other resources that mention the long-standing difficulty of this problem: — leo

I don't think it's true that "all scientists and philosophers failed." I don't think it's that hard to reach a consensus on what is included in the scientific method. I think you and I could do it if we approached the question openly.

It depends who you ask, observations are interpreted, they can be interpreted in various ways. Also scientists are researching invisible things, namely dark matter and dark energy, they haven't been detected despite countless experiments and enormous resources spent (especially regarding dark matter), scientists could keep researching them forever and never show them to exist and still call their activity science. — leo

Dark matter is controversial within the scientific community. There are observations that indicate it may exist, i.e. the gravitational behavior of the observable universe appears to require more mass than has been accounted for otherwise. There haven't been "countless experiments" and this aspect of cosmology has many uncertainties. I'm pretty sure that if dark matter can't be confirmed more robustly, it will fall by the wayside. Even if it doesn't, it's not the fruitfulness of the inquiry that makes it science, it's the methods followed.

On the other hand not nearly as much resources are spent on astrology, ESP or ufology to research them more extensively. — leo

There's a pretty extensive literature about studies done to evaluate those subjects. I've read some of it, although not a lot. It is my impression that studies that have been rigorously and scientifically performed do not find convincing evidence for these phenomena and studies that do find evidence have not been rigorously and scientifically performed.

That could be fine if there was indeed a fundamental distinction between science and non-science, something that justified the distinction, but if there isn't then these people have no legitimacy to impose their views onto the rest of the world and to dismiss other activities, theories, traditions and cultures the way they do. There is nothing in the label 'scientific' that gives an activity or a theory more legitimacy than one that is labeled 'unscientific', on the basis of that label alone there is no reason to treat them differently. — leo

As I've discussed, I believe there is a clear, justified distinction and I've tried to describe it. Saying something is not scientific is not saying it's not valuable or that it's not true. There are ways other than science to know the world. On the other hand, following scientific methods can be a very effective way of ensuring the legitimacy of an activity.

Does Lauden rigorously define what "science" means in his writing? If not, he is contributing to the demarcation problem.

Equally, we tend to acquiesce in what scientists tell us not to believe. If, for instance, scientists say that Velikovsky was a crank, that the biblical creation story is hokum, that UFOs do not exist, or that acupuncture is ineffective, then we generally make the scientist's contempt for these things our own, reserving for them those social sanctions and disapprobations which are the just deserts of quacks, charlatans and con-men. In sum, much of our intellectual life, and increasingly large portions of our social and political life, rest on the assumption that we (or, if not we ourselves, then someone whom we trust in these matters) can tell the difference between science and its counterfeit. — leo

I think a lot of people would say that this is backwards - that our society is one that does not understand and respect science. Large percentages of people continue to believe in astrology, creationism, UFOs, etc. no matter how scientists wave their arms and gnash their teeth.

Also, as I said, the choice is not between science and counterfeit science. There are legitimate ways of knowing that are non-scientific.

If these were necessary and sufficient conditions to demarcate science from non-science, then everything that we call science would satisfy these conditions, and everything that we call pseudoscience or non-science would not satisfy these conditions. — leo

Yes, as long as we can agree that these definitions are correct, then if something meets the definition, it's science and if it doesn't, it's not. That's not to say there is not some additional work required to figure this out. We would have to put together and agree on a set of standards of what is required in the scientific method. That would take time and thought, but I don't think it would be too difficult.

Here you say that there is a specific methodology, "the scientific method", by which science operates, implying that what we call pseudoscience or non-science doesn't follow that method. You have defined it roughly as involving observation, experimentation and other techniques. But astrology, ufology and geocentrism also follow a method that involves observation, experimentation and other techniques. So what is it about their method that makes them non-science rather than science? — leo

Again, a distinction. The important thing about astrology, ESP, ufology, etc isn't that they are not science, it's that they are not true. They have not been been shown to be true by scientific or other legitimate methods. In addition, they have been shown to not be true by scientific or other legitimate methods.

To be clear though, it is perfectly possible and legitimate to study astrology, ESP, UFOs, etc. scientifically. It has been done. Generally speaking, the phenomena studied have not been shown to exist.

These are all marks of psychology, sociology, and psychiatry. All three meet these necessary conditions. Yet astrophysicists, for example, might take umbrage calling them science. — Noah Te Stroete

Then the astrophysicist would have to answer these questions:

• Do you agree with the definition of "science" given? If not, we'll have to negotiate a new meaning we can agree on.
• Do the activities included in the social sciences that you are skeptical about meet that definition? If your answer is "no," show how that is true.

What will the formal structure of a demarcation criterion have to look like if it is to accomplish the tasks for which it is designed? Ideally, it would specify a set of individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for deciding whether an activity or set of statements is scientific or unscientific. — leo

This confuses me. I can see it mattering if a statement is true or if it is adequately justified and documented, but I don't see why it would matter if something is science or not? We were recently discussing similar issues over on the "What are the Philosophical Equivalents of the Laws of Nature" thread. I wrote this:

Let's talk about science for a minute. What is it? (from various places on the web).

[*] The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
[*] The pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
[*] Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

Let's pull out a couple of words I think are important - "systematic" and "methodology." What is the system, the methodology, by which science operates? Well, we call it the scientific method and it involves, as the definitions indicate, observation and experimentation along with a bunch of other stuff. The scientific method is not science, it's how we pursue knowledge and understanding.

As this quoted post indicates, science is the practice of obtaining knowledge using the scientific method. The scientific method is a formal set of procedures to provide justification for knowledge using observation, experimentation, and other techniques.

Why is that hard? The distinction between science and non-science is no more difficult in concept than that between apples and oranges. I acknowledge it might be quite a bit more difficult in practice.

Science has fundamental laws and principles by which we obtain a 0.05 answer. What is the philosophical equivalent? — Denovo Meme

Been thinking about this more. Philosophy has lots of laws and principles:

• Law of the excluded middle
• T Clark is always right
• Law of non-contradiction
• Law of identity
• Don't use any of the 10,000 logical fallacies
• Lots more

Problem - they're all bullshit except the second one.

On the other hand, science doesn't really have any laws either. A law describes how something has to act or should act. Scientific laws only describe how the world generally tends to act under certain circumstances. They describe. They don't cause or explain.

I think the probably have concepts like: part of my family, potential danger, potential prey. And perhaps some more specific ones: smell-of-human-that-brings-food, rock-that-is-nice-and-sunny-for-afternoon-nap.

I definitely would not limit the mental line-drawing activities to humans only. — WerMaat

I think you're probably wrong about wolves, but I'm not sure. Other animals perhaps - chimps, crows, dolphins?