Premium
An analysis of the demarcation problem in science and its application to therapeutic touch theory
Author(s) -
Newbold David,
Roberts Julia
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
international journal of nursing practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.62
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1440-172X
pISSN - 1322-7114
DOI - 10.1111/j.1440-172x.2007.00646.x
Subject(s) - pseudoscience , falsifiability , karl popper , epistemology , heuristic , perspective (graphical) , scientific progress , history of science , philosophy of science , face (sociological concept) , critical rationalism , scientific theory , sociology , computer science , philosophy , social science , artificial intelligence , medicine , alternative medicine , pathology
This paper analyses the demarcation problem from the perspective of four philosophers: Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend. To Popper, pseudoscience uses induction to generate theories, and only performs experiments to seek to verify them. To Popper, falsifiability is what determines the scientific status of a theory. Taking a historical approach, Kuhn observed that scientists did not follow Popper's rule, and might ignore falsifying data, unless overwhelming. To Kuhn, puzzle‐solving within a paradigm is science. Lakatos attempted to resolve this debate, by suggesting history shows that science occurs in research programmes, competing according to how progressive they are. The leading idea of a programme could evolve, driven by its heuristic to make predictions that can be supported by evidence. Feyerabend claimed that Lakatos was selective in his examples, and the whole history of science shows there is no universal rule of scientific method, and imposing one on the scientific community impedes progress. These positions are used in turn, to examine the scientific status of therapeutic touch theory. The paper concludes that imposing a single rule of method can impede progress, in the face of multiple epistemologies, and the choice of scientific approach should be a pragmatic one based on the aims of the programme.