In this video, Massimo Pigliucci, the philosopher and biologist who runs the Scientia Salon site, discusses the demarcation problem, the dividing line between what is and is not science. The distinction is easy for things like astrology and astronomy, but gets more difficult for many other areas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBUKQWM5Jf0 I'd forgotten about Massimo's latest book on pseudoscience. … Continue reading Massimo Pigliucci on the boundary between science and pseudoscience
Tag: Karl Popper
Why philosophical conclusions are not reliable knowledge
Following Neil deGrasse Tyson's wholesale dismissal of philosophy, there has been a lot of discussion on the value of philosophy. As I've said repeatedly, I think philosophy has a great deal of value, but some of its defenders are tending to overstate what it can do. I've already written a post on what I see as the … Continue reading Why philosophical conclusions are not reliable knowledge
Falsifiability is useful, but a matter of judgment
Our discussions last week on Jim Baggott's book, 'Farewell to Reality', and Sean Carroll's Edge response, left me pondering falsifiability, the idea that theories should be falsifiable in order to be considered science. Falsifiability is a criteria identified by the philosopher Karl Popper. Popper was arguing against a conception held at the time by logical … Continue reading Falsifiability is useful, but a matter of judgment
Science, philosophy, and caution about what we think we know
What is the difference between science and philosophy? While there are enterprises that are clearly in one or the other, the dividing line isn't always a sharp one. Science grew out of philosophy, particularly natural philosophy. Some would say that science is itself a type of philosophy. But what is the difference between what we … Continue reading Science, philosophy, and caution about what we think we know
SelfAwarePatterns 