Demarcation Criteria - Part 2

So in part 1 I laid out what is at stake in my mind. Now we are moving on towards the second part - where I want to assume some possible reasons for valuing a demarcation between academic disciplines. Here it should be quite blatantly noted, that while I will be using "science" as a backdrop for the conversation - the ideas spread forth could be applied to any academic discpline or in actuality, any grouping or discipline that is aiming at "truth" whatsoever.

Reasons FOR Demarcation:

First - It seems that one reason to demarcate between disciplines would involve making a distinction that is value-laded. Science is good. Non-science is bad. Or perhaps better said: Science gets one towards "truth" and non-science does not. Clearly being able to identify what is "science" would help identify what is valuable or useful etc...

Second - Another reason for demarcating might be to keep a sense of "Domain Purity"(1). It seems that if we can keep science (or philosophy or history or art) pure - then we all know what each thing is giving us:
(a) We know what classes to teach in our departments, what conferences to read papers to,
(b) What OBJECT our way of finding truth points towards
(c) With this we know our comfort zones, and are able to stay within our fields of knowledge and expertise.
(d) Most importantly, our methodology will be similar, and as such we will know how to judge what is "good" in relation to our domain and what is "bad."

MORE TO COME

(1) - This phrase, "Domain Purity" was flounced around a few times over some drinks after the conference that got these neurons firing in the first place...I'm not sure that I know what was meant at that party, so I am trying to assume what could have been meant on my own.