Feng Shui and the Demarcation Project

Author:

Fernandez-Beanato DamianORCID

Abstract

AbstractThe vast majority of well-informed philosophers of science and scientists who are clearly (uncontroversially) scientists are able to extensionally differentiate between almost all scientific and non-scientific practices, disciplines, theories, attitudes, modes of procedure, etc., and do so or would do so in much the same way. This legitimately leads to the conclusion that the main problem of scientific demarcation has already, in a sense, been solved, although an explicative integrated account of that solution has not yet been given. Doing so is the goal of the project proposed in Fernandez-Beanato (Journal for General Philosophy of Science 51(3):375–391, 2020b). To advance toward the solution of the scientific demarcation problem, this article executes part of that project: a first step for scientific demarcation is the composition of a broad “list” (set) of accepted characteristics, conditions, or properties of science, or indicators of scientificity (most of them, by themselves, unnecessary and insufficient) which might be collectively used to establish a demarcation between those theories, cognitive fields, practices, etc. which are scientific and those which are not. This article deals with feng shui as a clear case of a non-science. It defines feng shui and then lists properties of science that feng shui possesses and properties of science that it lacks. This article then shows that the proposed demarcatory list demarcates feng shui as non-scientific, in agreement with the current philosophical and scientific consensus.

Funder

University of Bristol

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Education

Reference82 articles.

1. Anderson, E. N., & Anderson, M. (1973). Changing patterns of land use in rural Hong Kong. In E. N. Anderson & M. Anderson (Eds.), Mountains and water: Essays on the cultural ecology of south coastal China. Orient Cultural Service: Taipei.

2. Baran, G. R., Kiana, M. F., & Samuel, S. P. (2014). Chapter 2: Science, pseudoscience, and not science: How do they differ? In Healthcare and biomedical technology in the 21st century (pp. 19–57). Springer.

3. Boudry, M. (2011). Here be dragons. Ghent University.

4. Boudry, M. (2013). Loki’s wager and Laudan’s error. Pigliucci & Boudry, 2013, 79–98.

5. Boudry, M. (2017). Plus ultra. In M. Pigliucci & M. Boudry (Eds.), Science unlimited (pp. 31–52)? University of Chicago Press.

Cited by 4 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3