Demarcation paper On the Flat Earth theory
This is a demarcation paper on Flat earth theory
One of the central issues in the philosophy of science is characterizing or defining science in such a way as to provide explicit (and clear) criteria for what counts and what doesn’t count as science. This is known as the demarcation problem. Put differently, how do we demarcate science from non-science. This question is especially important in light of two widespread and related cultural phenomena: science denial and treating pseudo-science as though it were science. Because individuals are less and less aware of what science is and how it works, there is a growing tendency to treat scientific claims as mere opinions (claims with little to know evidence or justification). As such, the very practice of science is under threat. Related to this ignorance of science, is the growing practice of treating non-scientific practices and claims as though they were scientific. Part of the import of philosophers working to provide demarcation criteria is to be able to clearly state what does not count as science.
The Demarcation Paper is meant to give students the opportunity to explore this important problem by discussing a current issue. In particular, students shall:
- Identify a current issue that is either:
Not science but pretends to be. Or,
E.g., acupuncture, essential oils, non-GMO foods, flat-earth, etc. - It is unclear whether or not it is science.
E.g., climate change denial, anti-vaccination, vitamin supplements, etc. - Describe what philosophical view of science, explanation, or justification its proponents advocate (either explicitly or implicitly)
- Argue whether that view of science is enough (sufficient) to establish that issue as being scientific.
- This might be done in one of several different ways;
- That view of science is itself flawed (i.e., it is not a good or accurate definition of science) and so cannot justify that issue as being scientific.
- That view of science does not in fact entail that the issue is scientific in nature.
- The view of science is plausible and it is plausible that it could support the issue as scientific, but only if proponents of that issue assume further things that are themselves problematic (e.g., not supported by the view of science)
If the student argues that the issue is scientific, he or she must have strong evidence from peer-reviewed philosophical sources.
Note Well, this is not a paper on science, but on the philosophy of science. Any discussion of the science (or not) involved in the chosen issue should be:
ONLY in service to illustrating the particular philosophical theory of science the student is discussing about the chosen issue. And,
Limited in scope.
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
