text:
Talk:Demarcation problem

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alshalash1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization
This should be 'Demarcation problem" - wiki policy doesn't like caps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banno (talk • contribs) 21:54, 6 August 2004 (UTC)
 * OK. It's done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisSteinbach (talk • contribs) 20:18, 7 August 2004 (UTC)

Kuhn
The discussion is unclear. Kuhn thought he could provide a demarcation criterion. But I suggest that it is generally accepted that he failed to do so. Non-sciences also work within paradigms. The talk of "naturalistic" explanations is not from Kuhn, and should be separated from the discussion of his work. Banno 19:19, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * Yes. I think some work is required on this.  As it happens I purchased the 'Structure' book yesterday with such a thing in mind.  -- Chris 07:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Excellent. Most comment appears to be based on secondary reports. Now there will be two of us who have read it. Enjoy. Banno 21:07, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

 * I had planned to make some changes to the Kuhn section after reading the book, this is now a year ago. I remember reading a rather explicit formulation of a demarcation criterion, something like, 'when there are no more puzzles to solve then the business of science ends'. It was worded better no doubt but that's the gist of it. Damned if I can find it again; does anyone else remember reading this? --Chris 17:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion
The last para is just too full of weasels. Unless it can be re-worded to say something, it would be better to leave the discussion hanging… Banno 19:22, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

 * What would you say is wrong with the paragraph you removed? I would argue that is does say something.  For one thing it leaves the discussion hanging, as you wished, only explicitly. It's also provocative to both sides of the debate, on the one hand suggesting that the problem might be solved, on the other that it is in tatters. -- Chris 07:41, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Last Para: The problem of demarcation is considered solved by some, for others there is no such thing as an autonomous scientific method, no definitive philosophy of science and no clear and agreed-upon distinction between science and pseudoscience.

See WikiProject Philosophy/Proposal for criticisms. Mainly, I find the weasel words problematic. But in addition, the thrust of the article is, as it should be, that the demarcation problem is unresolved. The first sentence of this paragraph stands in strange contrast to the remainder of the article. If someone claims that the problem is resolved, then their argument should be presented here, instead of this oblique reference. Banno 21:43, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I started to revise the paragraph and came up with something completely different. Take a look. -- Chris 23:19, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting. Like the idea of including the judgement. Need to think about it for a bit... Banno 09:32, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

The final sentence of this article used 'all' to mean 'those under the juristiction of the United States Supreme Court'. It's been deleted. --Eienmaru 21:43, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Although I am the one responsible for the final sentence, I would be the first (as in fact I am) to admit that your change is an improvement. Chris 20:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Partial solutions
There is no discussion of the possiblity of partial solutions to the problem. A total solution decides between either science and unscience. Whereas, a partial solution can also decide something is 'maybe science'. I don't know if there is any literature out there on this, but it seems probable that I am not the first to consider it. An example of a partial criterion is Kuhn's paradigm criteria- every science must operate according to a paradigm. An example of a fairly uncontroversial partial criteria is a theory must make at least one prediction about reality. The latter is just a much more inclusive version of falsifiability. Also, it is merely equivalent to the statement that sciences are ontologies, so that rejecting it as a criteria risks an incoherently antirealist stance where even instrumentalist interpretations would be dismissed since instruments do not exist. Such a position quickly leads to a pathological cynicism so bad that one must reject one's own existance. --Intangir 14:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Something like Wittgenstein's families of meanings would offer a partial solution. Just as in Philosophical Investigations we are led to the conclusion that the word 'game' has no analytic definition, we might say the same of science, i.e. that the things we consider to be science are not so because they share some essential commonality but because they are connected by a ‘family resemblance’. But you’ll notice that this is not so much a partial solution as a denial that the problem even exists. I don’t think that it will be difficult to find a partial solution or even a number of partial solutions. So I put it to you that it was never really a problem to do so and that a partial solution is in fact no solution. --Chris 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

More demarcation problems?
I thought that demarcation problem would apply (1) between protoscience and pseudoscience and (2) between science and protoscience (e.g. for both, at what point in history did astrology go from being protoscience to pseudoscience?) — Dunc|☺ 15:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess it depends who's talking. When philosophers such as Feyerabend or Lakatos talk about the demarcation problem they usually mean demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Popper's demarcation was between science and non-science but amounts to more or less the same. I wouldn't be surprised if other authors have used the phrase "demarcation problem" in other contexts. Do you know of any? --Chris 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Personally, I think that since Demarcation means the process of drawing boundaries around something, the "Demarcation problem" (of Science) should refer to all of these. These boundaries get the most attention, however, since they're haziest. It's a lot easier to distinguish Science from Religion than Pseudoscience. However, the most common other boundary I've heard being debated is with the "Social Sciences" (in debating whether they fall inside of outside the realm of science). ---DrLeebot 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

 * The demarcation problem can also be between science and metaphysics - or philosophy generally. I think this was what Popper had in mind; in any event, it is an important issue, and quite distinct from the demarcation between science and pseudoscience. Metamagician3000 02:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Metamagician3000. There needs to be some discussion of theory as a compilation of scientific laws (i.e., claims that have been demonstrated by the scientific method) and philosophical assumptions (i.e., claims that have not yet demonstrated).  Such a definition of theory allows for the use of theoretical frameworks without the seeming condemnation of assumptions as being "nonscientific."  Then, falsifiablity does become a means of assessing the theory - no black and white judgement, but a graded evaluation.  Leeirons (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

 * At the top of the article we also have "A form of this problem, known as the generalized problem of demarcation subsumes all three cases. The generalized problem looks for criteria for deciding which of two theories is the more scientific."

 * This is taken from Lakatos (somewhere in 'For and Against Method'). Now I think about it, that might not be the correct wording. He might have said "The generalized problem looks for criteria for deciding which of two theories is the better." --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 * The point in history terms change is long afterwards, and you're heading into anachronistic trying to attaching modern labels to rewrite history. Historically (i.e. as related by historians rather than by scientists) those terms are late 20th century, and use to denigrate positions by labeling with them seems internet era.  Even the existance of science as a separate taxonomy of learned societies seems mid to late 19th century so that would be the earliest that Astronomy would have someone as an authority in the body making statements for the field.  The AAS was founded in 1899, the RAS in 1831 based on the hobby club Astronomical Society of London. Seems content would likely be always about current Astronomy projects or outcomes than about some non-Astronomy field so I am not sure why or when they would say anything about astrology.   Markbassett (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Distinct
Just reading the article over and I was curious: What is the difference between a "paradigm" and a "model"? It look a little bit like Kuhn has exchanged the word model for the fancier "paradigm" and made a bunch of controversial statements, que money.

In science all the things he describes as "paradigms" are called "models", so you can see my confusion. It might be of help to the article if we can describe the proper distinction. Jefffire 10:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Paradigms are more encompassing—they are not just the scientific theories (or models) themselves, they are also a form of pedagogical practices, methodological approaches, laboratory techniques, etc. At least, that's my understanding of it. A model would be only the intellectual component of a paradigm, whereas the paradigm itself covers more than just the intellectual, if that makes sense. --Fastfission 12:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm afraid I don't fully understand how that description applies in practice. Also your usage here appears to be slightly different to that detailed in the article where the word is used as being simply synonymous with model. I think the article may be oversimplifying (or mabey Kuhn was oversimplifying...). Jefffire 12:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Dumb this down a little
I think the following explanation should be dumbed down a little i.e. de-jargonized:
 * (Robust as in "stable" in the statistical sense, i.e., not very sensitive to occasional outlying data points.)

Specifically the "outlying data points" part. Maybe replace with "not very sensitive to external input." or something like that (but preferably something evem less pretentious sounding). I'm not even really sure its a pureley statistical concept. I see what the person was saying, but I suspect robustness is a more abstract term (and also not so tidy a concept as this contributor made it out to be. Its kind of like "elegance", just something not strictly defined but generally felt to communicate some real quality.) Brentt 06:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Some additions to be made
I'll try and make these at some point when I have more time but I thought I'd just list them here for the moment... ...just some thoughts. More to come later. --Fastfission 00:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Two basic approaches to the demarcation issue are the essentialist approach and the constructivist approach (one attempts to define demarcation, the other attempts to describe it)
 * The term "demarcation problem" originates with Popper, Popper's motivations include trying to determine why he thought Marxism and psychoanalysis were different than physics
 * Falsification is interesting because it is an epistemic attempt to answer the problem
 * Robert K. Merton was clearly concerned with demarcation as well, concerned with why Aryan Science was bunk, offered up a sociological/methological approach to the question
 * Kuhn's approach can be summarized a bit cleaner (as relevant to demarcation) in that while he explicitly avowed trying to find demarcation criteria, he essentially set up the difference between the hard and social sciences as being one of the presence of a paradigm, which is itself a essentialist statement about demarcation, though one rooted in conceptual/historical conditions (Popper rejected him for this reason)
 * Constructivist criticisms of Popper like "experimenter's regress"

Some Historians' Perspectives
This is a nice topic. Some historians of science tend to define science in such broad terms that the demarcation problem almost vanishes. (As someone who has studied the astronomies of primitive cultures, which can be very precise while finding expression in mythological terms, I admit to being attracted by such approaches). Here are a few examples:

 * For our purpose, science may be defined as ordered knowledge of natural phenomena and of the relations between them.
 * William Cecil Dampier-Whetham, "Science", Encyclopædia Brittanica, 11th ed. (1911).

 * Science comprises, first, the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena and, secondly, the [mathematical and logical] tools necessary for the undertaking.
 * Marshall Clagett, Greek Science in Antiquity, (1955).

 * Science is a systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or else is based on such an explanation. Mathematics finds a place in science only as one of the symbolical languages in which scientific explanations may be expressed.
 * David Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," Isis, 83 (1992): 554-563.

I think a section on those who seek a broad definition of science to avoid putting limits on our understanding of the ways people have done science in the past or in other cultures would be helpful. --SteveMcCluskey 03:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Since there have been no comments on this proposal, I will be adding this information shortly. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

trope
Please disambiguate the trope link in the article. I can't do it, because I don't understand it well enough. ike9898 20:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

 * I understand the word according to this definition from Merriam-Webster 'a common or overused theme or device'. Given that definition, I'm not sure any of the alternatives is entirely accurate. --Chris 23:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Between science and ... ?
The intro talks about the demarcation problem as between science and three areas: "non-science", pseudoscience, and religion. It is relatively clear what is meant by pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is imitation science: it is fraud, myth, or ideology that has been dressed up in a lab coat in order to garner the public respect that science has earned.

But it is not clear what is meant by "non-science". From what I have read, one of the concerns about falsificationism is that it does not adequately distinguish scientific statements from other statements of fact. See, e.g. this essay, which points out that we do not usually regard commonplace statements, such as "My eyes are blue," as scientific statements, even though they are falsifiable. --FOo (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Has any philosopher or scientist published views relating to 'a priori' notions? These are the assumptions that we bring to a situation, such as the idea that all physical laws are unchanging. (This assumption underlies all of physical science.)

 * Perhaps we can say more about the distinction between various pseudosciences and "science" on this basis. That is, if a particular idea or claim cannot be falsified because it is taken as a given. In particular, "creation science" begins with one or more assumptions: (1) that God created 3-dimensional space, the physical universe, and the planet Earth; and probably also (2) that God created life on earth. Given these assumptions, creation science goes on to select and highlight all evidence consistent with its initial set of assumptions. It then must deny (or interpret) all contrary evidence. Its methodology, then, departs from the usual scientific method in that it has no intention of checking whether its assumptions are consistent with real-world observations. Proponents of creation science have set it up so that there is no conceivable way to disprove it. In other words, it is not falsifiable in the sense defined by Karl Popper.

 * This is interesting to me - a thinker who rejects Scientific Creationism as pseudoscientific - because I have also wanted to explore similar or related ideas. Intelligent Design looks like the same thing, but there is a dispute between its adherents about whether this is so.

 * Some ID adherents say that it does not contain either of the presuppositions mentioned above. That is, these adherents do not begin with an assertion that God created anything or anyone. But what I don't know - and cannot glean from reading Wikipedia articles - is whether they consider any of their hypotheses to be falsifiable. Is there any evidence an ID adherent would accept, which would lead him to conceding that intelligent design is a false theory? --Uncle Ed (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

 * Regarding your views on 'a priori notions'-

 * "Has any philosopher or scientist published views relating to 'a priori' notions? These are the assumptions that we bring to a situation, such as the idea that all physical laws are unchanging. (This assumption underlies all of physical science.)"

 * I think it's worth noting that the theory of determinism as well as the theory of causality are indeed theories (i.e. considered settled, by and large, as far as practical science is concerned, though mechanisms and valences may still be up for debate) and more than 'a priori notions'. 'a priori notions' are more properly relatable as unexamined assumptions -- additionally 'a priori notions' are differenciable from a priori hypotheses developed from previous knowledge without prior knowledge with regards the specific experimental situation.

 * A good example of an 'a priori notion' would be; 'Their must be a god' followed by a departure directly from this assumption to pseudo-hypothesis formulation. The term A priori has multiple meaning, even within the context of philosophy, the kind of 'a priori notion' you refer to is best conceptualized as faith, defined as 'belief without evidence,' which is also the base of a definition of assumption.

 * Incidently, if you disagree with regards causality and determinism. Then feel free to magically vanish and turn up in the Andromeda Galaxy, it should be possible.  Oh and our ability to reason (though it sometimes leads us astray of the actual patterns and relationships) would actually kill us -- in an indeterministic non-causal universe, reason would kill as patterns would simply not exist and any extrapolation that they did would probably lead to death -- in a partially indeterminstic partially non-causal universe the situation would be even worse, because our ability to reason wouldn't even allow us to predict randomness.

 * If these ideas interest you or you wish to enrich this article check out Compatibilism and incompatibilism. Talon138.246.7.148 (talk) 09:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Major claims without support
This article is full of them, e.g. the whole section entitled "Science and religion part ways," contains not a single citation, it does however make various claims for instance

"The work by Draper and White must???? (emphasis and question marks added) be seen as directly coming out of this social climate, and their model of science and religion as being eternally opposed, if not historically accurate, became a dominant social trope"

This is clearly some form of synthesis if not merely non-reviewed garble.

Even where citation does occur, it is unclear what exactly is being cited, for instance, the entire section on Kuhn, is cited but once at the end -- surely more than just the last sentence is being cited?

My concerns having been voiced, I will wait for responses, none being recieved in a months time, I will begin revisions. Talon138.246.7.148 (talk) 08:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Does the demaraction problem also include the limitations and applicability of the scientific method?
The limitations and applicability of the scientific method are not discussed in the article. I thought the demarcation problem also was about that. Or is that discussed in some other article?

I have the following issues in mind:
 * Can the scientific = empirical method deal with philosophical issues such as what is right and wrong, does God exist, what political ideology is best, etc?
 * Is it possible for humans and the scientific method to ever answer questions such as what are not smallest element of the physcial world, can a physical "theory for everyhing" be formulated, does multiple universe exist, is the universe a computer simulation, where does the natural laws origin - who created them, etc.
 * Is the scientific method always necessary and useful in developing practical knowledge, for example in engineering, in art, in medicin, etc. Mange01 (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The demarcation problem's history and critics
I just came across an interesting essay on the demarcation problem:. Laudan begins with a nice historical introduction to the demarcation problem, discussing its origins and development in Ancient Grece, in 17th c. Europe, and in the late 19th c. He then notes that "No one can look at the history of debates between scientists and 'psuedo-scientists' without realizing that demarcation criteria are used as machines de guerre in a polemical battle between rival camps" (p. 119). After considering some of the major 20th c. attempts at a demarcation criteria, Laudan finds all proposed demarcation criteria to be wanting in one or more respects and concludes that "the problem of demarcation between science and non-science is a pseudo-problem (at least as far as philosophy is concerned)" (P. 124).

Laudan's longer historical perspective and his critical take on the demarcation problem should be reflected somewhere in this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Sterling suggestion, Steve. Can you tell us a bit more about who Laudan considers to be the major players in the pre-20th century debate? There may be resources on them that are easier to access than Laudan's book. Skomorokh  21:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

 * Here's a quick summary: Laudan starts with Aristotle (who else) who distinguished science from opinion and from superstition by the certainty of its principles and from the crafts by its comprehension of first causes (p. 113).  Going on to the seventeenth century, he sees Galileo, Huygens, and Newton as continuing to insist on the certainty criterion, but pretty much giving up the insistence on first causes.  That insistence on certainty was almost universal until the nineteenth century.  He then turns to the modern period, the Vienna circle, and the work of Karl Popper (as well as Paul Thagard).  I really think his historical interpretation itself is a valuable resource; the book is on Google Books so it's really accessible.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

potential addition (lack of unanimity)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#UniDiv:

"almost complete disagreement on the general criteria [science/pseudo-science demarcation] judgments should [...] be based upon."

Twipley (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Nice link Twipley! And I suspected so: 1. the current demarcation discussion is very oriented around the criteria posed by logical positivism and so physics reasoning, 2. most philosophy of science reasonings silently and reveringly ignore the nature of the collectives of scientists and their historical developments. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm on my way completing the link reading: Sven Ove Hansson is writing an essay on varying aspects of classifying what's science, and he is listing the various approaches much in the same way as in the article, but much better. However, it must be stressed that there's no consensus even to what approach to use,
 * a list of criteria of the theory,
 * a methodology description,
 * a characterization of the research process/programme or
 * a sociocultural continuity.
 * The link can be used as a check list for the article: since he is an anti-pseudoscience grand old lord (boldly proclaiming an argumentum ad verecundiam) it is worthwhile to adapt the article to the pattern of his essay. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 14:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"contemporary"?
Pondering the link provided by Twipley, I'm wondering what motivates the section "Demarcation in contemporary scientific method". The section contains a nice and agreeable set of criteria for a sound science, that I'm willing to accept, except: ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) many sciences currently accepted as sciences, f.ex. psychology, quantum physics, and cosmology doesn't fulfill the criteria very well,
 * 2) is there one coherent reliable source, f.ex. Prof. X Y at Z University, listing all those criteria? )-: If not, the list might be WP:SYNTH which the Wikipedia community frown upon! :-(
 * 3) if the list of criteria also could be successfully applied to a religion (which by general agreement are not sciences), then the criteria don't provide a demarcation and so might be irrelevant for the article.

 * And: why is science all the time using concepts from outside science, such as maths, logics and philosophy? They don't fulfill testable in the very least. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 12:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * A useful analysis of some issues concerning the Demarcation problem is the article by Larry Laudan, "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", discussed in the preceding section, which concludes that "demarcation between science and non-science is a pseudo-problem." Laudan is opinionated, but his clearly argued point of view, as well as that mentioned by Twipley from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, should be among those presented to meet WP:NPOV. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Good, and thanks! I'm on Larry Laudan's side, since I believe the demarcation line may develop to dogms, which might be detrimental for the expansion of science. However I believe the claims made in section Demarcation in contemporary scientific method is not trustworthy. I doubt the claims in that section and its relevance for the article. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 15:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The chapter in question is available on Google books here, it contains an extensive criticism of the testability of the demarcation line criteria proposed. I conclude that the demarcation problem is essentially pseudoscientific by the criteria erected by those trying to determine the demarcation line. Or else, if denying the demarcation problem: nice try, next try please! ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 16:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right in your critique, but the bigger problem from a Wikipedia standpoint is that the section "Demarcation in contemporary scientific method" provides no citations and seems to violate WP:NOR. It doesn't really matter whether you and I doubt the claims in that section; the key is that they are not verified. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

 * The Verifiability article doesn't say that citations are needed for all statements. Rather, it says that "material...likely to be challenged needs to be attributed to a reliable, published source...."  Most of the material in the "Demarcation ..." section is found in almost any description of the scientific method.  Citations, by themselves, would add little to the readers understanding of it.  Further, it is not clear what the purpose of the section is.  If the purpose is to offer a definitive solution to the demarcation problem, i.e., to describe "how and where to draw the lines around science," it doesn't succeed. Ivar Y (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

 * It was argued that the Demarcation in contemporary scientific method section is based on common descriptions and unlikely to be challenged and hence does not need attribution to a reliable published source. Yet the general sentiments expressed here challenge not only its reliability, but also its relevance to the article on issues of philosophy of science. This challenge can perhaps be expressed a little more sharply:

 * In contrast with the rest of the article, which describes the historical continuity of science and recognition of the problem, this section seems to suggest that the problem is resolved by demarcating contemporary science (based on method) from earlier science. Is this relevant and fitting? What is the source?

 * The statements in this section seem self-contradictory. The unknown author states that the criteria to qualify as science "vary significantly" among different sciences today, and then lists typical criteria. The author argues that that non-sciences fail to meet a "significant number of these criteria". What is the difference between sciences that vary significantly form these criteria and non-sciences that also vary significantly? What is the point? Beyenklu (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

 * OK, the section's been flagged for original research and needing citations for two years. I'll just be bold and delete it. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Aristotle
These recent edits raise some Aristotelian background, but don't really deal with what Aristotle had to say about the problem of demarcation. There is some good historical literature on the Greek natural philosophers' (and medical practitioners') attempts do differentiate what they were doing from the arguments of their intellectual rivals (see for example G. E. R. Lloyd's, Magic Reason and Experience and The Revolutions of Wisdom.) The recent edits don't seem really on target and besides that are poorly sourced (the only reference being to an essay with no author given on the web page of something called the "Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies."

As time allows, I will provide a new discussion of the early history based on Lloyd. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Finished a first cut on the issue.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I wasn't so much interested in what Aristotle himself had to say on the "problem" as I was in modern views of pseudoscience with reference to ancient ideas about the physical world. I'm intrigued by what you wrote about the shift from relying on mythological accounts to organizing knowledge on a more practical (or empirical?) basis.

 * The history that interests me is the transition from people making dogmatic statements (e.g., based on myth, tradition, or theology) and people testing their ideas with reference to real-world observations. Even such modern notions as "Kids who eat sweets get hyperactive" was considered common knowledge until only a couple of decades age. I'm interested in tracing similar, untested notions from the earliest antiquity to now. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * See what you're after. Since the Greeks were already dealing with something close to the demarcation question, I feel that would be a more appropriate place to start this discussion. I haven't talked about the role of argumentation in Greek society that (according to Lloyd) contributes to their emerging demarcation criteria. That sounds like it might resonate with your concern. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Cultural Significance
A passage dealing with the broader cultural significance of the demarcation problem, specifically with its use in determining the legality of teaching "Creation Science" in science courses, was recently deleted with the rationale that this "article is about a conceptual problem inside philosophy". This historian doesn't believe we can draw that line so sharply -- especially in a general encyclopedia like Wikipedia. I propose adding a limited discussion of this issue under a new major heading entitled Cultural significance or Broader significance. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Steve McCluskey, thanks for your input on this. Its good to discuss this. My reasoning was "I see where you are coming from, but like you said its a case outside philosophy. Since article is about a conceptual problem inside philosophy, things like this should be in some other article." Granted that wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it does not mean that every article's scope includes cultural significance. The removed materials looked like WP:Coatracking - and . They were going beyond the scope of the article topic and off on a tangent. The article is specifically about a conceptual problem in philosophy, not about creationism (including American legal decisions). Since the court case that was cited was clearly focused on creationism, not the demarcation problem of philosophy, then it does not belong here. We have to look at what a source focuses on and how much weight it gives the point related to the article topic. In this case falsifiability is only mentioned in the context of creationism, not the demarcation problem. I would not mind if the case was cited by a philosopher of science in a similar context as Sven Ove Hansson's quote with Astrology in the Falsifiability section. The overall focus of that quote is clearly on the demarcation problem, not astrology. What do you think? --Ramos1990 (talk) 06:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support adding another section. The demarcation problem was one of the issues in the court case, and the ruling involved using a demarcation criterion, thus it was relevant. Your logic would seem to argue for an extremely narrow scope in all articles (e.g. removing all cultural significance/"broader impact" sections). Arc de Ciel (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Arc de Ciel. Glad to hear your thoughts. I want to clear up one thing, I am not saying what I wrote above goes for all articles. I never said this in the first place. Some article topics are broad or narrow and have non-philosophical contexts. In those, cultural examples would be appropriate. But others are philosophical, so cultural examples, if given, would have to be more focused on that topic's overall philosophical relevance not just on the fact that the topic was used by someone for something. A good example of appropriate sourcing is Sven Ove Hansson's quote with Astrology in the Falsifiability section. The source uses cultural objects to discuss a philosophical point. This article is pretty specific about its topic already - a narrow philosophical issue. To avoid going off on tangents away from the philosophy of this article, the sources should come back to discussing some aspect of philosophical demarcation to a good extent, not just use it. There are many cultural applications of Deontology, but that does not mean that they should be put in there as the article is on philosophical discourse. What do you think? To be fair, I may be inclined to your suggestion of an added section, but I would need more reasons.--Ramos1990 (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I read this article it is a presentation of the historical transformations of a philosophical idea from Aristotle and Hippocrates to Popper and Laudan. Such history is incomplete if it does not place the Ancient Greek discussions of demarcation in the context of claims of superiority of rival schools of thought (which it does) and modern discussions in the context of debates over the nature and role of science (which it does not). --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The article is not focused on "Ancient Greek discussion". Almost the entire article addresses the modern debate on the demarcation problem (as opposed to "the nature and role of science", which it should not). There's no shortage of articles with much more extensive treatments of "Creation science" litigation. The passage didn't actually "deal" with the "broader cultural significance of the demarcation problem", at all... While it's ironic that a non-scientific enterprise, the US Courts, "ruled" on a few cases, it's simply trivia that falsifiability was cited in this case, but the reader likely comes away with the wrong impression that there's some sort of precedent endorsing falsifiability as a general demarcation criterion. Even children could tell it was fake science... litigation doesn't address the general problem.—Machine Elf 1735  04:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Hey Machine Elf, I appreciate your input on this!

 * To SteveMcCluskey, Though I partially agree with you on history and philosophy (though most of philosophy is independent of historiography or history), as the article stands, no irrelevant detailed information is noted about Hippocrates school (i.e. actual medical practices or cases of conflicts), rather it is clearly in the context of Aristotle's "Posterior Analytics" which contains one of the oldest formal versions of the scientific methods. These citations are indeed relevant because they take historical objects and uses them to focuses *overall* on the nature of science - Aristotle's approach. The cultural instances are explicitly used to shed light to the bigger philosophical picture of demarcation. But the citation of the court case, does not do this. Falsifiability is mentioned very few times and the focus of the court case is not about talking about the nature of science, let alone demarcation, it is specifically about a conflict whether creationism should be taught in schools. The source clearly has a separate aim overall (not demarcation or the nature of science) and it does not seem reasonable to just stick in this philosophical article just because it mentions falsification. Popper isn't even cited in there at all. Again, there are many cultural examples where Deontology is used, but that stuff probably does not belong in that article if it does not shed philosophical light on the topic. The same goes for other philosophy articles.

 * Like I said before, "I would not mind if the case was cited by a philosopher of science in a similar context as Sven Ove Hansson's quote with Astrology in the Falsifiability section. The overall focus of that quote is clearly on the demarcation problem, not astrology." For similar reasons, I removed the science and religion section in this article - it didn't shed light on the philosophical problem of demarcation, though I am sure it seemed "relevant" to others. These are tangents WP:coatracking. As it stands, the article looks more focused on the philosophy than anything else - which is the point. Since the nature of the article is philosophy, its a different context than other articles. What do you think? --Ramos1990 (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Steve McCluskey and Arc de Ciel that the "broader cultural significance of the demarcation problem" needs mention. The first sentence of the article talks of distinguishing between science and nonscience and between science and pseudoscience. Nonscience and pseudoscience are issues here as well as science. Creationists like Alvin Plantinga argue that creationist ideas do belong in science. i.e. that demarcation should not exclude them. Pennock's paper was largely about the legal implications of Laudan's article. Laudan himself wrote a follow-on paper entitled "Commentary: Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern" and Michael Ruse wrote a response to it. The judges in those court cases are "talking about the nature of science," in fact they rule on it. And, I suspect that most readers who will read this demarcation article in the future will do so because of these external issues and not because of an interest in the philosophy of science. Ivar Y (talk) 10:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Ivar Y, thanks for your input on this. I do not disagree with noting creation science in this article. I have been saying simply that any source here should to be focusing on shedding light on philosophical discussion on demarcation (which is what the article is about) to a good extent, not just saying object X is not science (like the court case source), or object Y is science. If the source does not shed light on philosophical demarcation as the Hiippocrates-Aristotle example or the Sven Ove Hansson's quote with Astrology, then it should not be included in the article.

 * Your proposed sources, though I have not been able to look them up, seem to be more relevant and seem to have appropriate philosophical context. Just remember that if it discusses wider philosophical demarcation issues (irrespective of creationism), then it would be relevant. It should not just say creationism is said to not be science and other people think this too and so does a judge. Overall some significant philosophical point on demarcation should be the end product of any source here, otherwise, the article loses its focus becomes a place where creationism is being debated and focused on way too much. There are other pages which focus on that stuff specifically like creationism. --Ramos1990 (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

 * Your use of the phrase "appropriate philosophical context" made me reread my last note, and I realize I was not totally clear. When speaking of the context of Greek and modern discussions of demarcation criteria I meant historical context, not philosophical context (or as I would call it, philosophical content).  Just look at the opening passage of Larry Laudan's classic "The Demise of the Demarcation Problem", where he clearly places his discussion in the contemporary historical context of "the courts of law" and the relation of widely held beliefs to the statements of those who are accepted as scientists.  Laudan clearly discusses the historical context of the demarcation problem, and so should we. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 18:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Greetings Steve McCluskey, Thanks for clearing up what you meant originally. I think we are in agreement then. I have been saying all along that, like Laudian's use, you can use historical context or historical events or historical object (i.e. creationism) in this article as long as it is used to shed some light on the philosophical content on demarcation. Lauden does a good historical review in the context of demarcation overall. Even the heading explicitly says "old demarcationist tradition" and since the piece has an overall focus on demarcation, the citation is good for this article - the main focus IS on shedding light on demarcation. Absolutely he uses examples from history and even reviews it, but he doesn't waste much time on most of it. They are there to enhance issues of demarcation he discusses, even his reference to court cases on creationism serves that function. Its a minor note in light of bigger issues in demarcation.

 * Overall some significant philosophical point on demarcation should be the end product of any source here. I have been noticing that there is creationism fetish on some science articles. Apparently this is the only example editors here ever come up with and fight for to stick it into every science article they can. But I want to at least keep this article on point and not have it go off on tangents with sources which do not explicitly focus on trying to solve or shed significant light on the demarcation problem. --Ramos1990 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Pennock and methodological naturalism
From a very quick scan of Pennock and Ruse's book, it seems that they are concerned with a narrow subset of the Demarcation problem, that of separating science from religion, rather than with the general problem of distinguishing science from non-science. Pennock's criterion of methodological naturalism seems useful for distinguishing science from religion, but doesn't seem useful for distinguishing science from other activities that some philosophers have considered non-scientific, such as astrology or psychoanalysis.

Since the discussion of Pennock is not applicable to the general problem, it should either be qualified to state its limitations or deleted. Perhaps someone who's more familiar with Pennock's work could take a stab at making such qualifications. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey SteveMcCluskey, I agree with your assessment as I have read Pennock's work and other materials. I agree that he is overall focusing on the science/religion debate (which is not really focused on in demarcation debates). As such, I agree that his piece does not really focus on how to separate science from non-science. Actually the whole Ruse-Pennock book IS generally about the science/religion debate as it focuses on two court cases in general and does not sink into the general demarcation issues. Only a few papers like Laudan's "demise of demarcation" piece actually focus on general demarcation issues. Much of Pennock's works elsewhere have also focused heavily on the the science/religion debate too. Since Pennock does not really develop a "methodological naturalism" criterion nor does he focus on it in much depth, but just mentions its practicality on the science/religion debate in "Can't Philosophers Tell the Difference between Science and Religion?", then perhaps deletion would be in order. --Ramos1990 (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Creationism and demarcation
Ramos1990 wrote in the Edit summary of his 19 March 2014 revision:

 * removed wp:coatrack on creationism - that point does not address demarcation issues at all and belongs in creationism page, also Laudan does not require a new section. condensed views on Laudan into section, removed stuff not on Laudan

But creationists do make scientific claims. In fact, Wikipedia has an article on Creation science. It says among other things:

 * Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and disprove or reinterpret generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the history of the Earth, cosmology and biological evolution.

 * The overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that creation science is a religious, not a scientific view, and that creation science does not qualify as science because it lacks empirical support, supplies no tentative hypotheses, and resolves to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes. Creation science has been characterized as a pseudo-scientific attempt to map the Bible into scientific facts. According to Samir Okasha, "virtually all professional biologists regard creation science as a sham".

The first sentence of this article is:

 * The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, and more specifically, between science and pseudoscience.

The implication is that this article is about pseudoscience (including creationism) as well as about science and that both can and should be discussed. It is hard to demarcate between science and pseudoscience if pseudoscience is ignored.Ivar Y (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Sorry Ivar Y, I hear you, but this is NOT an article focused on creationism or focused on pseudoscience or a list of examples of science or a list of examples of pseudoscience. For those things you can go to creationism and pseudoscience which are focused on those matters.

 * Actually, not sure why this is being brought up again. We already discussed this in the two sections above this one. This was already dealt with - for the same reasons. Please see the two sections above this for reference. You were part of the discussion on one of them.

 * Keep in mind that this article is about: The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, and more specifically, between science and pseudoscience. The article is general and is about philosophical discourse in the philosophy of science on criteria to distinguish between science and non-science, NOT about pseudoscience itself or creationism itself. It should be obvious. We have to keep the focus of the article in mind and not deviate to other topics too much WP:COATRACK. Overall some significant philosophical point on demarcation should be the end product of any source here.

 * Also the sources here should be focusing on the demarcation problem mainly, not court cases or religion (which is what Pennock's source focuses on mainly) and developing the criteria to a significant extent. As Steve McClusky diligently observed in the section above: Pennock's criterion of methodological naturalism seems useful for distinguishing science from religion, but doesn't seem useful for distinguishing science from other activities that some philosophers have considered non-scientific, such as astrology or psychoanalysis. Since the discussion of Pennock is not applicable to the general problem, it should either be qualified to state its limitations or deleted. --Mayan1990 (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't respond to your your and SteveMcCluskey's comments at the time but that doesn't mean that I thought that your comments "dealt" with the issue. And, even if you believe that they did, that doesn't mean that we can't deal with the issue again.

The demarcation between science and "religion" is an important demarcation issue. The Pennock paper (Can't philosophers tell the difference between science and religion?: Demarcation revisited) shows why.

Pennock's paper was largely based on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. The central issue in that trial had to do with the demarcation of science. The Dover school board had decided that Intelligent Design was scientific and should be taught in science classes in the local public schools. Some parents sued, arguing that intelligent design was really religion and that, therefore, it was barred by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the issue that the judge had to decide was whether intelligent design was really science or not, i.e., was intelligent design on the science side or the non-science side of the demarcation boundary.

It was a famous trial with organizations and individuals from around America supporting the plaintiffs and defendants. The Thomas More Law Center (TMLC) with support from the Discovery Institute represented the defendants. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) with support from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) and others represented the plaintiffs. Pennock was one of the experts called by the plaintiffs. In the end, the judge decided that intelligent design was really religion and that, therefore, it could not be part of the school curriculum. The full text of the judge's decision is available in the wikisource:Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.

It seems reasonable to me that a famous trial on the demarcation of science should be noted in a Wikipedia article on Demarcation. After all, articles like this one commonly include such examples.

In his paper and in the trial, Pennock offered Methodological Naturalism (MN) as a ground rule for distinguishing science from non-science and pseudoscience. Essentially, he is saying that science can investigate nature, which is structured and logical, but cannot investigate the supernatural, which is unstructured and unpredictable. He writes that MN is "an all-but-universally-accepted assumption of scientific practice and that is well justified on epistemological grounds as a rational basis for empirical research." We might argue whether he is right. However, the current demarcation article also has problems. Is the concept of Methodological Naturalism more ambiguous than, say, Popper's falsifiability? Another question: would the criteria currently in the Demarcation article justify the rejection of intelligent design in Dover?

(I've made some changes to the Logical positivism section to try to make it more meaningful for people who don't know much about the subject.)Ivar Y (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi Ivar Y, I see your points, but we should keep focus on the scope of the article as it is a philosophical article, not a cultural or a legal article or a political. Philosophical debates in the philosophy of science are not concerned with religion or legality or politics or things like that per se, they are focused more on universal concepts. It should be ok to cite a source that focuses, at its core, on developing a philosophical criteria for distinguishing scientific ideas from non-scientific ideas (trying to distinguish why a chemist is not a cook and a cook is not a chemist, even though there are substantial similarities in both of their activities, aims and understanding of transmuting matter). However, Pennock's work clearly does not do that - it merely asserts that methodological naturalism is common practice or assumption among scientists and leaves it at that. Also, its overall focus and commentary pertain to court cases, not the philosophy of science. In its assertions of methodological naturalism, it obviously does not even attempt to demarcate between naturalistic non-science topics like Big Foot hunting, UFO research, and telepathy vs naturalistic science topics like zoology, SETI, neurology. "Methodological naturalism" is just not developed in that source to be of any use for philosophical demarcation issues and it does not shed any new light on demarcation issues either. For legal issues on education, maybe it is useful, but not for the philosophy of science (which is what this article is about).

 * Its core is about a court case and is clearly more political/legal than it is about the philosophical demarcation problem. The court case involved matters of demarcation, for sure, but the court case was on education policy, not demarcation issues themselves. 'Involving a topic' and 'focusing on the topic' are two different things. Furthermore, court cases are legal activity and the interpretations made by lawyers and judges are not done for the sake of truth or for the sake of loving wisdom (philosophy). They are there for the sake of social order. All court cases interact with philosophy to some extent, for instance murders, drug dealing, kidnapping, rape etc all have interactions with deontology, utilitarianism, relativism, and other topics in philosophy, but no court cases are ever 'about' these philosophical topics. Furthermore, philosophers of science do not use legal sources in general to develop their ideas about what is and what is not science.--Mayan1990 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

 * In defense of Pennock's Methodological Naturalism:

 * Science is based on the scientific method.

 * The elements of the scientific method are:

 * 1) Hypothesis: Propose a conjecture that explains some part of the real world.
 * 2) Prediction: Logically deduce observations that must occur if the hypothesis is true.
 * 3) Testing: Make observations in the real world that correspond to the predicted observations.
 * 4) Analysis: Determine whether the hypothesis is true or false by comparing the predicted observations with the actual observations.
 * 5) Repeat

 * It is impossible to predict the actions of supernatural beings; anything and everything is possible.

 * Hence, Methodological Naturalism (MN), which forbids the use of supernatural hypotheses, describes how science really works. According to the Demarcation problem article: "The demarcation problem in the philosophy of science is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience, and more specifically, between science and pseudoscience."

 * Hence, MN is a solution to the Demarcation problem. It is not a complete solution, e.g., it says nothing about telepathy.  But, then, neither does the current Demarcation problem article.Ivar Y (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Ivar Y, as I already mentioned "Methodological Naturalism" is not developed in the source to be of any use to the problem of demarcation. The focus of Pennock's work is legal commentary on court cases on education policy. Its more legal commentary than it is about demarcation issues - which are much broader than what you are thinking (you only have the supernatural in mind, which is very limited) and of course the court cases were NOT focusing on demarcation problem at the core. Again 'involving a topic' and 'focusing on the topic' are two different things.

 * Furthermore, Pennock really does not develop the idea of Methodological Naturalism (MN) aside from assuming it is is used by scientists and is not as developed as well as other demarcation issues/criteria like logical positivism or falsifiability or its irrelevence (death) have been. If you can find a better source whose aim is on elaborating on MN's usefulness, or lack of, for demarcation that is focused on the wider issues, as opposed to being majority about court case commentary, then I think it would be acceptable. I have noticed that you have a supernatural focus on your additions, but it should be kept in mind that non-supernaturalistic concepts which are pseudoscience/non-science like metaphysical naturalism, scientism, and atheism (if you are thinking about theism when you refer to the supernatural) also face the same problems as anything you throw at the supernatural. The demise of logical positivism is a an example of that. In terms of your argument on science and the scientific method, we as editors cannot insert our own views out of thin air. That would violate wikipedia protocol (WP:OR and WP:SYN). No single criteria on demarcation is generally a "compete solution" to the demarcation issue but the solutions that are posted in this article should be much more developed and from more focused sources. --Mayan1990 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IN RE Logical positivism
In response to Machine Elf's 26 March 2014 request in the Demarcation problem Revision history:

I was concerned that some readers might be confused by the earlier version of the Logical positivism section of the Demarcation problem article. The first sentence of the article reads "The demarcation problem ... is about how to distinguish between science and nonscience...." A naive reader is likely to expect to see some words on what is science in the Logical positivism section. But the original version doesn't talk about what is science. It talks about meaningfulness, which seems a somewhat strange way to introduce science. What is a meaningful science? In logical positivism circles, a meaningful statement is one that is "verifiable," but most new readers won't know that. A careful reader will probably figure out what is meant. I was trying to make it easier. A bigger concern are the statements about the death of logical positivism. The paragraph doesn't say why it died; it just says that it is dead. This opens Pandora's box. Are empirical observations no longer required in science? Are scientific hypotheses still required? Is witchcraft now legitimate?

My new version is not completely new. Some of the sentences in the original version were used later in the new version.Ivar Y (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Note the stipulation in the logical positivists section of the Science and Pseudoscience article in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.Ivar Y (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

 * I've reapplied your changes since no further discussion was forthcoming. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * That's not any kind of reason, the topic is the demarcation problem and I disagree that "A naive reader is likely to expect to see some words on what is science in the Logical positivism section. But the original version doesn't talk about what is science."—Machine Elf 1735   03:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * I agree with Ivar, that someone just coming to this topic might not equate meaningfulness with science, and there is no reason why they should be expected to. I can't see that it hurts to give at least a little background. What Ivar has provided could be condensed somewhat, but apart from that the idea seems sound. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * My reapplication of your changes get re-reverted by User:Machine Elf 1735 while I was in the middle of making a few edits to the text as it stood, but I can discuss them here. Apart from some rewording the only sentences I had trouble with were the following,

 * ''"Another problem: if only testable concepts are meaningful, then Logical Positivism, which does not predict observations, is itself meaningless. And there were other problems, which are discussed below.

 * Another problem: observations are commonly theory-laden. The tests that scientists design reflect their understanding (or misunderstanding) of what they are trying to verify. And, even if a theory is well-confirmed, there is always the possibility that further testing will expose a flaw."''

 * The first "other problem" requires attribution and I suggest removing that sentence until such attribution is given. The second "other problem" can reasonably by attributed to Popper and I think Ivar Y's text can stand with those two changes, plus a little condensation and rewording.

 * I wait a day or so for Machine Elf to have a say before putting the changes up again. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 04:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * OK, the first one needs rewording but Putnam would be a good source, I can look into that if you like? I agree something like the second one can be easily cited.—Machine Elf 1735  04:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * See Logical positivism. Just please don't revert all the unnecessary newlines... thanks.—Machine Elf 1735  05:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Methodological naturalism again
A suggested new section, probably before Logical Positivism, because this one for most users will be pretty basic.

Methodological naturalism describes how science is normally done. It requires that scientists must hypothesize only natural causes and must test these hypotheses using only observations of natural events.

From the Natural Academy of Sciences:
 * Definition of Science: The use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process.

 * In science, explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena. Natural causes are, in principle, reproducible and therefore can be checked independently by others. If explanations are based on purported forces that are outside of nature, scientists have no way of either confirming or disproving those explanations. Any scientific explanation has to be testable....

Note that methodological naturalism differs from metaphysical naturalism. The latter asserts that nature is everything. There are no gods, no witches, no magic. There is only nature. The former asserts only that nature is what scientist study. Note also that as scientists learn more about nature, the natural world can get bigger. Earlier scientists knew nothing of DNA or quarks or the planet Neptune, for example. Ivar Y (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Ivar Y, we are all familiar with methodological naturalism, but what does it have to do with the general demarcation problem on science and nonscience? By assuming methodological naturalism you still cannot distinguish between science or nonscience at all. For instance, beer brewing vs analytical methods of fermentation or animal hunting vs ghost hunting or an electrician vs a researcher of electricity. All of these are assuming physical phenomenon in the natural world but this assumption alone does not really help demarcate anything. Most activities in the world are not scientific like talking with friends, eating, playing video games, running, working and they all are in the natural world. Does assuming methodological naturalism help at all here? Custom or practice of what scientists assume, which is inevitable, is probably not a good criteria for demarcating anything between science and non-science in general.

 * If you are thinking about the supernatural, well it is interesting that even after and during a supernatural event, there is always an embedding of it in the natural world. For instance, assume that a ghost moves things around. If such a thing does occur, it obviously would have occurred in the natural world since it interacted with things in the natural world and affected an event in the natural world. These are issues with methodological naturalism since it is not really developed as a useful criteria on how to distinguish between science and nonscience. It might be able to distinguish the natural from the supernatural, but not science from nonscience. These are not the same questions or topics that can be interchanged. The Academy of Science source you mention is not discussing demarcation criteria let alone methodological naturalism, it is merely making a definition of science, which is not the same focus as this article on how to distinguish science from nonscience. The Academy would probably not consider walking or running a scientific activity, even though both are in the natural world, so demarcation is not really their focus at all from what you quoted. There are many dimensions in science so it would appear that overlaps between topics and ideas can and do occur, but the general demarcation problem is a small and specific issue that is quite specialized by philosophers of science and in some cases historians of science. --Mayan1990 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of science is to explain and predict the behavior of our world. Scientists devise theories to do this. Suppose you are trying to create a new or improved scientific theory so that you and others can better understand how the world really works. Over time, most scientists have come to the conclusion that such a project will be successful only if you limit the project to natural causes and effects. There are some who dispute this but their view is rejected by almost all scientists and philosophers. Methodological naturalism is based on this judgment. It essentially says that science projects that incorporate and depend on supernatural elements are not science, i.e., they are nonscience. Supernaturalism is, thus, a demarcation criterion.

Further, tentative science theories must be testable. If you can't test them, if you can't verify that a tentative theory can predict observations that match corresponding observations of the real world, then that theory is not scientific. Hence, testability is another demarcation criterion. There are still other criteria, for example, falsifiability.

Methodological naturalism assumes that scientists are following the scientific method. The main components of the scientific method are making hypotheses, deducing predictions from them, and testing these predictions. See the Overview section of the Scientific method article. Sections of the current Demarcation article, e.g., Falsifiability and Thagard also assume the scientific method. It might be desirable to insert a brief description of the scientific method near the beginning of the current demarcation article to assure that readers are aware of this.

Suppose that a supernatural ghost does move some things around. How would you know? The objects are still natural. Ivar Y (talk) 10:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Hi Ivar. The focus of this article is on criteria for distinguishing science from nonscience and is about discourse in the philosophy of science. If you read up on discourses in the philosophy of science, you will notice that they tend to focus on metaphysical and logical concepts in order to arrive at their views of how science operates and the how science should be distinguished, if at all. What you are talking about is more on trends or assumptions that are not well developed philosophically to dealing with this, as far as I can tell. Scientists have variable opinions since some believe in pure regularities, but some also believe that exceptions may have occurred at some points (Newton is a cliched example of this).

 * Also scientists do not really follow the scientific method in practice. See "Scientific Method in Practice" by Hugh G. Gauch who discusses the official positions of scientific organizations on this point noting that scientists are creative and not rigid followers such a thing. Nor are most scientists trained IN what science is or the philosophy of science or the history of science. They are mainly trained in their sub disciplines and specialties, not all other disciplines in science and not in the enterprise of science itself. This is where philosophers of science come in. They are the ones that specialize in the metaphysical thing called science.

 * So far, Methodological naturalism has only been applied to separate science from supernaturalistic religion specifically and nothing else really. It has its origns in the science-religion debate too. Due to its strange focus, it certainly is useless against naturalistic religions like Raelianism or Ethical culture so it has issues with even demarcating anything from religion completely too and also naturalistic nonscience like telepathy, big foot hunting, metaphysical naturalism, secularism, being a technician, the social sciences, etc. It really doesn't do anything with these. But the demarcation problem is much older than that and focuses on a different question - science and nonscience (which is very broad and includes mostly natural phenomenon). The principle of falsifiability, verification principle, Thagard's method are all well developed metaphysical filters that can be used to process information and come to the conclusion that such and such information, concept, idea, explanation fall within what we call "science" and determine its status. Methodological naturalism does not really provide those kinds of insights because it is not a useful filter in order to determine the "scienticity" of an idea.

 * The example I gave about a ghost moving stuff around and your acknowledgement that the objects are still natural kind of makes the situation worse because activities by supernatural agents would always end up being embedded in nature thus making them natural and immune to methodological naturalism. I am willing to see if there is any utility for methodological naturalism as a demarcation criteria, but it has to be more developed than just an "assumption to use only nature" as a way to distinguish science form nonscience (natural and nonnatural). The scope of MN is just too small to be of any use to the bigger issues in the general demarcation problem. --Mayan1990 (talk) 21:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

 * To add one more approach to this tired discussion, methodological naturalism fails as a criterion as it excludes too many studies of nature from that have been considered to be science. Let me mention two: The anthropologist Robin Horton, in his "African Traditional Thought and Western Science" points out that spirits play an effective role in the diagnosis of disease among some traditional people, leading him to generalize that "gods and spirits do perform an important theoretical job in pointing to certain interesting forms of causal connexion."   Turning from the anthropological present to the historical past, historians have shown that Kepler maintained that planets were animated and driven by a kind of spiritual force.  If we want to use "no gods, no witches, no magic" as a criterion of demarcation, we will have to exclude Kepler (to say nothing of Plato and Aristotle) from the realm of science. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be some confusion about what this talk page is for. It is not a philosophical debating society. If there are reliable sources which indicate methodological naturalism as relevant to demarcation, then the article should duly reflect that. If not, not. It's that simple. Historical examples and other argumentation are completely beside the point. -hugeTim (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciate the comments, SteveMcCluskey and Hugetim. I agree with your points. I mentioned before that if there are reliable sources that focus heavily on MN as a criteria for demarcating science and many forms of nonscience, then there would be no issue. However, the only source mentioned so far is a legal commentary/opinion piece that does not attempt to demarcate science from all forms of nonscience, but science from supernaturalistic religion and worldviews only. It misses relevance to the general demarcation problem, which does not deal with religion or the supernatural or worldviews. The focus is on developing general criteria on how to determine if something is scientific or not in general. The claims that scientists operate by assuming natural explanations only, have been the opinions of us editors only, not sources pertaining to the philosophy of science. Since this article is a philosophical one with a little on history, the context is more abstract and metaphysical on following ideas rather than social trends since philosophers characteristically do not gather empirical data in the way that scientists do. I think this should be kept in mind. --Mayan1990 (talk) 03:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that we are ever going to reach an agreement. The arguments are frequently irrational. For example, Mayan1990 wrote:

 * "The Academy of Science source you mention is not discussing demarcation criteria let alone methodological naturalism, it is merely making a definition of science, which is not the same focus as this article on how to distinguish science from nonscience."

The definition of science has nothing to do with the problem of distinguishing science from nonscience?

My concern is that the article is degenerating into an attack on science. I fear that creationists will use this Wikipedia article to demand in state legislatures that creationism be taught in science classes in American public schools. Ivar Y (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ivar Y, its seems like you are missing what this article about. Its about developing criteria philosophically in demarcating science from non science. The Academy of Science is clearly not developing criteria for what is science and what is not science. They are merely providing a definition of science and are not even dealing with nonscience or even delving into why nonscience would be nonscience or why science would be science at all. It does not justify or explain its position, it merely asserts a position. That is a key difference in philosophy articles, they have to explain, justify, and elaborate on why something is and why something is not, rather than just making an assertion.

 * Not sure why you think that this article is an attack on science, unless you think that disagreements (which are universal among philosophers) is something bad. Its not really an attack on anything, but merely a discourse on a metaphysical problem and the solutions philosophers have developed so far to see if science and nonscience have clear boundaries, overlap, or are merely the same thing with different clothing. Not sure why you think this article would be of any use for creationists and how it would develop into a slippery slope of impacting American education either. Wikipedia would not even be acceptable in court :). The demarcation problem is not focused on court cases nor is it oriented towards science education, so its probably best to keep it away from that and keep it in focus on general concepts that can be universally applied to any theory, belief, activity. WP:COATRACK issues may emerge if one deviates too much. I kept some of the stuff you added that was relevant to the article (the idea that there may be multiple criteria rather than just one) so its not like we are tying to make it harder for you. It just seems that you are focusing way too much on creationism when this article is not about that topic at all. If you find a source that focuses on MN as criteria for establishing natural/supernatural science from natural/supernatural nonscience then I think it would be general enough to the wide scope of the demarcation problem, to be included here. Falsifiability, paradigm shifting, verification principle, Thagard's method are all applicable to anything so they are clear, solid, developed, attempts at solving the problem. Hope you understand this. --Mayan1990 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's an example of the kind of criteria I am suggesting. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on demarcation only uses the word "naturalism" once at the very end in a discussion of related questions. Now, can you identify a similarly authoritative source on this philosophical question that would support adding an entire section for MN? If not, then your complaint is with the state of philosophy and your recourse is to publish elsewhere a philosophy article expressing your views, which article could then be given due weight in this Wikipedia article. Meanwhile, it is not appropriate to distort Wikipedia's coverage of philosophy to suit some legal strategy. In particular, that Academy definition is apparently not in conversation with the philosophical literature on this question. Such views could perhaps be briefly acknowledged here but not given prominent placement. -hugeTim (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have problems following your (Mayan1990) reasoning. It seems to me that when The Academy of Science says that "any scientific explanation has to be testable," they are asserting that testability is a demarcation criterion. Arguably, a more detailed explanation is desirable but that does not mean that "testability" is a meaningless criterion. Actually, their description did say more, e.g., "explanations must be based on naturally occurring phenomena," etc. Are the current criteria in the demarcation article supposed to be better examples of good descriptions of criteria? If yes, why?

Science and nonscience cannot be defined separately. The demarcation boundary of nonscience is the same as the demarcation boundary of science. Science activities are on one side of the boundary; nonscience activities are on the other side.

It seems to me that the Logical Positivism criterion and the Falsifiability criterion in the current article together imply that Methodological Naturalism is also a valid criterion. I'm assuming an everyday definition of supernatural, e.g., gods, ghosts, witches, etc. God cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation that predicts what God will and can do. Hence, God cannot be an object of scientific study.

My choice of words about the article "degenerating into an attack on science" was poor. What I meant was that the article does a poor job of defending science. It makes science vulnerable to attacks by creationists, by people who deny the threat of global climate change, and so on. Laudan's views on the demise of demarcation are similarly controversial and were brought up in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.

The demarcation problem may not be focused on court cases but court cases may be focused on the demarcation problem. Ivar Y (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

 * The latest comment is close to engaging in philosophical debate on the nature of science and of the demarcation criterion. As hugeTim pointed out above, that is not the function of a talk page, which should focus on discussing the improvement of the article. I am also a bit troubled by your concern that "the article does a poor job of defending science."  It is not the purpose of an encyclopedia to defend science (or any other knowledge system); encyclopedias present the current state of scholarship -- here scholarship on the philosophy (and perhaps history) of science.
 * As to the concern that Laudan's position has been used by pseudoscientists, this does not undermine the philosophical weight of his argument. It might be useful to briefly point out where Laudan's argument has been used by named creationists (citing reliable sources) and (how/whether) this use has lead some named philosophers (again citing reliable seondary sources) to critique Laudan's position. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

 * Ivar, I think everyone here is agreeing that you are using this talk page for the wrong purpose. This is not really a place to argue over what you think sciences is and how you would like to frame science. This is an encyclopedia and so it collects multiple views that are prominent in a given field of expertise. In the case, the article is about the philosophy of science's demarcation problem so all the sources have to be philosophically focused and engaged overall, not focused and engaged in legal issues or organizations that do NOT explicitly address the demarcation problem in conversation with the philosophical literature. You are incorrect in assuming that the court case was focused on the demarcation problem because it was focused on education policy explicitly and exclusively, not about the demarcation problem. Involving an issue and focusing on an issue in the context of a discipline are two separate things. Fore example, court cases involving prostitution and drugs do have utilitarian and deontological "dimensions", but no court case or judgement has ever been focused resolving philosophical debates on deontology or utilitarianism. The goal of legal practice is not philosophical at all, especially since all philosophical debates are all discussed in nonlegal settings and contexts (journals, academies, universities, conferences, etc). The overall focus of a given source matters in philosophical articles like this one.

 * In terms of the Academy of Sciences, they are not engaged in the demarcation debates either. Providing a definition or description of science does not mean, as hugeTim observed, that it is engaged in resolving the demarcation problem as philosophers have debated because 1) your source does not mention the technical term "demarcation problem" at all and 2) it does not mention the technical term "methodological naturalism" either, 3) even if we translate "testability" to mean the technical term "falsifiability" by Popper (neither the term nor Popper were mentioned either) we see that the source adds nothing new, 4) we cannot read into these sources more than what they explicitly say as that would potentially be WP:SYN. Keep in mind that if the Academy had mentioned both of these technical terms then perhaps it would be a different story. Both of these terms are special/technical in the demarcation debates, they mean something very specific, and they were created to specify certain ideas in the debates from other ideas.

 * Also, your inference that because "Logical Positivism" criterion and the "Falsifiability" criterion are in the article, that "Methodological Naturalism" is automatically relevant, is mistaken. "Methodological Naturalism" is a separate doctrine from both of these criteria and if it is prominent enough in the demarcation debates it should be included. So far no source has been provided that shows that it is a prominent concept in the demarcation debates so it cannot be included. This is probably the case because MN seems more redundant than innovative or insightful. For the purpose of the article, sources should have a clear and explicit philosophical focus, orientation, and engagement with the demarcation problem, including concepts in the demarcation debates. If they don't they don't belong here. --Mayan1990 (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Positivism Section is Biased
The section on logical positivism is devoted almost entirely to bashing on it and claiming that it's "wrong." This is ridiculous. The point of this article is to summarize what various schools of thought believed about philosophy of science and what qualifies as "science." You're not supposed to take sides. I don't see anyone going out of their way to explain how Ancient Greek Science is "obviously dead and wrong," so don't do it with positivism. Just summarize the view and get on with it.

On a related note, I've seen similar bias in other positivism-related sections. It's as if some angry philosophy grad student is taking it upon him/herself to trash positivism throughout Wikipedia. This is not the place for that kind of rhetoric.

 * Does the source both say: 'This distinction between science, which in their view possessed empirically verifiable statements, from what they pejoratively called 'metaphysics', which lacked such statements, can be seen as representing another aspect of the demarcation problem.'

 * and yet 'However, this is not strictly the demarcation between science and non-science or pseudoscience. "The verificationist proposals had the aim of solving a distinctly different demarcation problem, namely that between science and metaphysics."'

 * If we're not going to remove the section perhaps the background text should be restored and edited?—Machine Elf 1735  04:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Found it... how about this: "Logical positivism is often discussed in the context of the demarcation between science and non-science or pseudoscience, However, "The verificationist proposals had the aim..."?—Machine Elf 1735  04:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Demarcation problem. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121109143743/http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol5/TheReasoner-5(8).pdf to http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol5/TheReasoner-5(8).pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Current events
The demarcation problem is rising to the surface of public discussions as information warfare colors media descriptions of current events. Mention of the rising profile of the topic is a worthy feature of a statement in the lead: (“mention of consequential or significant criticism or controversies” WP:Writing better articles).

Such a contribution was made, but it was reverted. As the contribution included a pertinent reference to an article by Michael D. Gordin, there was no basis for the reversion.Rgdboer (talk) 02:21, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

 * Let me expand on the necessarily brief edit comment I made when I reverted your edit:
 * The text was quite vague, it suggested that the demarcation was held to be a valid concept by Gordin, when in fact the preponderance of Gordin's essay maintained that the claim that a clear line of demarcation separated science from pseudoscience was a myth, which was gaining new traction in the current political environment.
 * Even were the passage clear, it would not belong in the lead as it is a minor point of the article, following MOS:LEAD, and especially WP:LEADCLUTTER.
 * As a positive suggestion, such a discussion of the place of the demarcation problem in public discussions might possibly be done by integrating it into a more generalized version of the section currently titled Relation to the fake news problem, perhaps by re-titling it In relation to current events or Broader significance. You might want to look at the discussion above of the Cultural significance of the demarcation problem, where some editors objected to such an addition as WP:Coatracking.  I'd suspend judgment on the usefulness of such a section until I see how well sources can be presented to support the discussion.  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Gordin has been moved to suggested section which is renamed Significance. Another quotation pointing to demarcation as an educational purpose has been cited.Rgdboer (talk) 03:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * While this is from 2017, I noticed some problems with the citation and/or summary and have removed it as undue. It seemed self-contradictory, claiming that it was important but that it also was a myth, when noone really claims that the demarcation problem is always objective or ultimate, yet that the demarcation is obvious in other circumstances (obvious pseudoscience).  It also appeared to claim that only students not in pure sciences are taught with the concept, opening the door to quote mining apologetics.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 11:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"despite a broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method."
The opening of the article states "The debate continues after over two millennia of dialogue among philosophers of science and scientists in various fields, despite a broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method". This opening line struck me immediately as odd and so went and looked at the source which does not seem to back up this text.

The first source "Scientific Method in Practice. pp. 3–7" (which can be viewed here) in fact directly contradicts this saying: "The mere idea that there exists such things as general principles of scientific method is controversial". It then goes on to say "Many scientists have claimed there is no such thing as a scientific method" which likewise seems to contradict the idea that there is "broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method".

The only thing that could possibly be construed to support the idea of broad agreement is on page 5 where it mentions that the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) believes "Scientists share basic beliefs and attitudes about what they do and how they view their work". This could not possibly be used as a justification for the above line given that (1) this is not an authoritative source because A) it is merely a group of scientists with an opinion and B) it is not their area of expertise, as the demarcation problem is a philosophical problem, not a scientific one (2) It is a self-published opinion and (3) contradicts the opinion of the Cambridge-published author above.

The second source I could not seem to locate online unfortunately so it cannot be assessed. However the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a peer-reviewed publication, in contrast to the AAAS) paints a contrasting picture, "it is emphasized that there is much more agreement on particular cases of demarcation than on the general criteria that such judgments should be based upon."

The "broad agreement on the basics of the scientific method" line therefore does not seem to have any basis in the truly reliable sources and should be amended as such.80.111.17.229 (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

diagnosing pseudoscience by getting rid of the demarcation problem
haven't read yet. Maybe will check later if it looks useful. 67.160.203.180 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Scientism
The distinction between science and scientism is also a kind of demarcation problem, especially as understood by the language of this article's opening. Over the coming months and years we should try to elaborate on this in this article (I'm now motivated to go over cited reliable sources for such info). For now I'm just going to add a link to the Scientism Wiki article into this article's 'See also' section. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Demarcation problem


text:
Talk:Chengde

Population
Chinese city populations are really tough to pin down, I've seen figures anywhere from 300,000 to 4 million for Chengde. If anybody knows a reliable figure, please add.
 * Found a figure of 700,000 in a recent edition of Lonely Planet China. Don't know how accurate this may be, but I'll use it.--Jkiang 08:34, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How old is Chengde?
I would like to know how old Chengde is, if anyone knows, please let me know.

Rewrite
I have rewritten this article almost entirely. Chengde itself is not a World Heritage site, only a very small part it is. Thus, the article should be about the whole city, which is actually very large. Besides major expansion of this article, I think the following work needs to be done with Chengde-related pages:
 * Creation of a separate article for the Eight Outer Temples, along with link fix to this template so "its outlying temples" will link there instead of here.
 * Some sort of coordination for the temple articles if they each are going to have their own page. Right now only two of the eight temples (Putuo Zongcheng Temple and Puning Temple) have their own articles. Maybe condense them into one, and add information about the other six there?
 * Possible renaming of Chengde Mountain Resort to Mountain Resort, Chengde? As far as I know it is not really known by that name outside of Wikipedia. That article also needs major cleanup.

Just some thoughts. shoeofdeath 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Chengde was detached from Inner Mongolia and Attached to Hebei by the Qing
The Qing Emperors noted the rising Han population in Chengde so they detached it from Inner Mongolia and attached it to Hebei instead.

http://www.phil-fak.uni-koeln.de/fileadmin/chinastudien/papers/No_1998-1.pdf

http://books.google.com/books?id=6qFH-53_VnEC&pg=PA70&dq=1749+mongol+law&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HHkwVJmoF5WwyATosICYDQ&ved=0CD0Q6wEwBA#v=onepage&q=1749%20mongol%20law&f=false

Rajmaan (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Name

 * The name means "to convey..."

Well, no, placenames aren't infinitives and that's not anything like what 承 means or has meant
 * 1. https://www.britannica.com/place/Chengde

and it's not anything supported by that source. The actual meaning is something closer to "upholding" or "receiving virtue", with probable reference to the dynasty's obligation to (or gift from) its ancestors.

In any case, the current claim is demonstrably false and demonstrably unsupported by its claimed source, so I'll go ahead and nix it. — Llywelyn II   05:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Chengde Logo.png

title: Talk:Chengde


text:
Talk:Complex representation

Wait a minute! Are you defining a real rep as a rep over a COMPLEX vector space satisfying certain reality conditions and then claiming any rep over COMPLEX vector spaces which is self-dual isn't a complex rep????????

A complex rep is a rep over a complex vector space while a real rep is a rep over a real vector space. It doesn't matter if a complex rep is self-dual. It's still a complex rep and NOT a real rep! Since you're a physicist, take the example of a Dirac spinor. It's a self-dual complex rep of the double cover of the Lorentz group which satisfies your reality conditions. But it's still a complex rep nevertheless. Or how about the Majorana spinor? It's a real rep, and to use your matrix notation in your article on real reps, it doesn't even make sense to talk of antilinear maps over it because a real rep is NOT the same thing as its complexification!!!!!!

Phys 21:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * Wait another minute, please. It's only a confusion of language. If one hears of a "real representation", one should have in mind that it might be a rep living on a real vector space but also a rep being defined on a complex space and having a real structure (i.e. there is an anti(!)linear mapping whose square equals the identity map). Personally, for the latter I prefer the term "complex rep of real type". --Stefan Neumeier (talk) 23:02, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Complex representation