A Comprehensive Solution to the Demarcation Problem

The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science, which concerns the way one can distinguish science from pseudoscience, remains a relevant debate after decades of discussion among prominent philosophers. Sir Karl Popper, whose contributions to the philosophy of science are likely the most conspicuous, along with many others have tackled the subject from falsificationist and verificationist standpoints. Paul Thagard in his essay “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience” proposes a different approach, expressing need in the philosophy of science for an outlook that considers social and historical elements in addition to the scientific method itself. (66) This paper will attempt to articulate Thagard's explanation of his demarcation criterion and his argument for the labelling of astrology as a pseudoscience, and offer justification for accepting his judgements. I argue that Thagard's view most adequately and holistically addresses all components of the demarcation problem, and will defend them against complications that could be perceived to arise from the acceptance of this position.

Immediately, Thagard provides an explanation of astrology, along with a brief account of its origins and history. Astrology, in simple terms, is the mapping of the sun sign (Zodiac sign), ascendant sign, and the position of the moon and planets to determine a person's disposition, demeanour, and future. (66-7) Though astrology is considered to have begun formation thousands of years BCE, it was not popularized until the time of Alexander the Great, and not explicated until the second century in Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos. The discipline prospered well into the Renaissance, facing very little contestation until the Enlightenment. Despite this waning interest,...

... middle of paper ...

...d solution to the demarcation problem may not be sufficient for everyone, particularly because it does not offer an answer that has always been or will continue to be in the future. The success of his criterion relies heavily on the contextualizing of theories in place and time, as well as a deeper knowledge of the community of practitioners, and to many science enthusiasts this may appear threatening. However, if Thagard's argument is illuminating in any way, it certainly expresses the need for a criterion that does not undermine the tremendous influence of humanity on the course of science and that does not reduce the discipline to merely methodology.

Works Cited

Thagard, Paul R. “Why Astrology Is a Pseudoscience.” Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science. Ed. E.D. Klemke, Robert Hollinger, and David W. Rudge. Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998. Print.