Demarcation Criteria - Part 3

The third portion of this conversation contains my attempts at refuting or at least throwing doubt, into the set of reasons I offered FOR the Value(1) of demarcating.

I shall leave the first reason for demarcation until after the second set of reasons has been analysed, because it seems to me that the second falls into the first, and I'd like to have the backdrop flavor and color of the second set of reasons in place to discuss the first.

(a) This understanding of Doman Purity can easily be dismissed because it is clearly in line with the need, pedagogically, to delimit what is taught in what class, or under what degree. I want to stress at this point that what is required to be taught is not the same thing as saying what is beneficial to be learned. More on this later, but the point is that if the notion of demarcation is SIMPLY in reference to these pedagogical concerns - it seems to have enormous value.

(b) Without addressing issues concerning the First reason (that of a higher epistemic value on X discipline over Y discipline) it is still clear that one reason for Domain Purity would be to articulate and understand the relation between the discipline and the truth that discipline leads to. However, it seems to me that when we begin to talk about this "truth" that the individual, independent discipline points towards, we find a very large difficulty. What on earth would this truth be? It seems to be incorrect to assume that Sociology points to sociological truth and History points to historical truths, when the sociological truth concerning the behavior of a society at time X in place Y AND the historical truth of what happened at time X in place Y will overlap in significant ways. The objects of individual disciplines, (truths) will necessarily overlap into the Truth - (in as much as Truth exists). Thus, the idea of delimiting for a Domain that is pure is to ignore this very overlapping nature.

(c) If we are afraid to leave our comfort zones of approach, knowledge, expertise it seems we will run two codependent dangers, one of relevance here and the other that leads me down an approach of conspiracy theory(2). The relevant danger is that it might limit the individual from finding that ever-elusive capital T-Truth. If my philosophical inquiry into the Mind/Body problem leads me to look at memory - it would clearly be to my benefit to look at what Neuropsychologists, Biologists etc... have to say concerning the memory. It would not be useful for me, while pursuing the truth - to avoid these relevant, other, disciplines.

(d) I came at this from the angle of assuming that methodology helps one understand "good" and "bad" within the field. I want to note that asserting for a sense of Domain Purity in methodology would not be the only criteria (for good or bad), despite this, it also seems to be wrongheaded. To assume that one particular method will achieve the best results, in all cases, is to assert that we have already learned (in our disciplines) the "Best way of doing Art Criticism or Anthropology." However, the history of each respective discipline will show that the methods used at different times and under different circumstances have varied in relationship to the content as well as to the culture at large(3).


Now - the primary reason that I was able to come up with concerning the value of demarcating academic disciplines: English or not-English...Science or not-Science was that implicit when we demarcate is the assigning of the the value judgments of "more truthful" and "less truthful."

If it were correct that (for the sake of example):

i. Science indeed leads to truth
AND
ii. non-science does NOT lead to truth

then the demarcation would be essential to the development and pursuit of Truth. However, while the first proposition would indeed seem accurate, the second proposition is not. It has been a guiding belief in the background of these posts that all academic disciplines approach truth in their own way. Thus a demarcation between science and "the rest" would not be helpful. If the situation is indeed of this ( p v ~p ) flavor, then what does that mean? Philosophy, Art, Psychology, Astrology, Tarot Readings, History, Theology, etc... would all be given the same title. AND given the idea that the title (science or non-science) indeed references a different order of epistemic value then we are suddenly asserting that anything that is "non-science" is on an equal playing field with other parts of that list, but not with science. Another danger would the implicit equivallence of say, Philosophy and Tarot Readings or Astronomy and Astrology.

The defender of demarcation might respond: Whoa! Noone said it was going to be of a (p v ~p) but rather of a (p v q v r v s v ...) (Science or Art or Philosophy or etc...) flavor. However, this does not escape value laded context of distinguishment. IF there is a judgment of "science leads to truth" and "non-sciene does not" then we stuck in the (p v ~p) variety (either directly or by interpreting "q does not lead to truth" "r does not lead to truth" "s does not lead to truth" etc...). If we are not prepared to make the assertions that "science" is the only discinpline leading to truth, then I repose my question...what is the value of the demarcation? It seems this first proposition must either be the cause of the advocation for the demarcation of discinples or else reluctantly accepted when one advocates for the demarcation of disciplines.

MORE TO COME (Remarks concerning OTHER problems I see with demaracation, particularly at a Moral or Ethical level and the Conclusion)

(1) See Demarcation Criteria Part 1, Footnote 1.
(2) In short, less radical than I might otherwise assert it, I think the over-specialization of the academy is leading our Ivory Tower to ruin, both politically and socially.
(3) I feel the need to mention that other individuals in particular disciplines, notably in Mathematics, Science and Philosophy do indeed state that they have found real and static forms of methodology. Perhaps in reference to basic principles of mathematics (addition, subtraction) or else in Logic (Deductive validity, consistency, coherence) or else in experimental validity (repeatable, etc...). In response to this I shall simply state that one the one hand, these assertions aren't applicable directly to my conversation (they seem to reflect on more meta-disciplinary assertions) constituting an epistemological demarcation (which is not what I am arguing for or against in these virtual pages) AND on the other hand, I intuitively do not agree with notions of a unifying theory based on these issues but do not have the resources or inclination to defend my view in full here.