On Distinguishing Science from Non-Science

[Argon]

@pnelson

Larry Laudan, a philosopher of science with no sympathies for creationism, intelligent design, and the like, has nonetheless campaigned for decades against the unthinking use of the term “pseudoscience” to label any idea one doesn’t like. At a deeper level, Laudan has argued that being preoccupied with the question of whether some idea is, or is not, “science” ( per some definition of the latter) betrays a lack of interest in the far more important question of whether that idea is true or false – letting the question of what will count as “science” to be sorted out by history.

I agree with this. What I don’t agree with is the notion that one can’t distinguish areas or proposals that aren’t science around the same time they are promoted. Not all cases, but certainly many. In other words, we can have very solid knowledge about whether a proposal is amenable to fruitful investigation or merely ‘word salad’.

Regarding Intelligent Design science, I wrote this eariler today.

I guess I could say that I’m not personally interested in policing what is and isn’t science, but I’m willing to enter discussions with others who propose that science cannot be distinguished.