Scientificity and The Law of Theory Demarcation

Abstract

The demarcation between science and non-science seems to play an important role in the process of scientific change, as theories regularly transition from being considered scientific to being considered unscientific and vice versa. However, theoretical scientonomy is yet to shed light on this process. The goal of this paper is to tackle the problem of demarcation from the scientonomic perspective. Specifically, we introduce scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that an agent can take towards a theory. We contend that changes in this stance are to be traced and explained by scientonomy. Thus, we formulate a new law of theory demarcation to account for changes in scientificity within the scientonomic framework.
 
 Suggested Modifications
 [Sciento-2018-0013]: Accept scientificity as a distinct epistemic stance that epistemic agents can take towards theories.
 Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry:
 
 Scientificity: How should scientificity be defined?
 Scientificity of Methods: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards methods? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific methods?
 Scientificity of Questions: Can the epistemic stance of scientificity be taken towards questions? Can there be unscientific or pseudoscientific questions?
 
 
 [Sciento-2018-0014]: Accept the following law as a new scientonomic axiom:
 
 The Law of Theory Demarcation: if a theory satisfies the demarcation criteria of the method employed at the time, it becomes scientific; if it does not, it remains unscientific; if assessment is inconclusive, the theory’s status can become scientific, unscientific, or uncertain.
 
 Accept that the law of theory demarcation is not a tautology.
 Also accept the following questions as legitimate topics of scientonomic inquiry:
 
 Indicators of Theory Scientificity: What are the historical indicators of a theory’s scientificity? Can traditional indicators like textbooks, encyclopedias, conference proceedings, and journals be used to determine if evaluation by the demarcation criteria took place?
 Indicators of Conclusiveness for Scientificity Assessment: What are the historical indicators that an assessment by the demarcation criteria was conclusive or inconclusive? Does the lack of agreement or evidence count in favor of inconclusive assessment outcome?

A Compatibility Law and the Classification of Theory Change

“…Compatibility is a distinct epistemic stance that agents can take towards elements. We dissociate it in principle from other epistemic stancesacceptance, use, pursuit, as well as the new stance of scientificity that we suggested earlier (Sarwar & Fraser, 2018). If one is to show that two stances are not identical, one must demonstrate that, in some (conceivable) instance, an agent can take one of the stances without taking the other.…”

“…Using these notions alongside the law of theory demarcation and the law of theory acceptance, we argue for a logical structure connecting the assessments by the demarcation, acceptance, and compatibility criteria. We contend that scientific demarcation of a theory is logically prior to its acceptance, since scientific communities do not appraise unscientific theories for acceptance (Sarwar & Fraser, 2018). We then show that evaluations by the acceptance criteria are logically prior to those by the compatibility criteria, because concerns about a theory's compatibility with other theories in the mosaic arise only when it has already been accepted.…”

“…Although this point is not explicitly stated, the newly proposed law of theory demarcation is also diachronic (Sarwar & Fraser, 2018).…”

“…However, just as inconclusive assessment for acceptance can lead to a mosaic split (Barseghyan, 2015, pp. 202-216) and assessment for scientificity can at times leave the scientific status of a theory uncertain (Sarwar & Fraser, 2018), some additional conceivable scenario may obtain as a result of inconclusive assessment of compatibility. This unknown scenario is distinct from compatibility and incompatibility just as mosaic split is different from acceptance and unacceptance.…”

“…First, consider the mechanism of demarcation. The epistemic stance of scientificity (Sarwar & Fraser, 2018) elucidates a problem inherent in the definition of theory acceptance (Sebastien, 2016):…”