Demarcation Criteria - Part 4 (final)

The Final words concerning my hesitancy with Demarcation

It seems to me that the bottom line for demarcating must come out of a sense of academic elitism or bigotry. Neither of which is well founded nor is necessary for the pursuit of knowledge. No Philosopher needs to think of the primacy of philosophy and the inadequacies of say art criticism to pursue their exploration into ethics. In the same way, no scientist needs to think of how great methodological naturalism is and how inadequate creationism is to check out that sweet Catfish that hunts on land ;-). The scientist need know nothing other than Channallabes apus engages in a behavior that could clearly be a link in evolution from water dwelling to land dwelling animals. No need to slam the bible-thumpers. No need to reassert the primacy of methodological naturalism. To do this seems to me to be at the least, useless - but most likely a violation of some fairly well accepted normative ideas concerning dignity and respect.

I want to clarify here, that I am content to have titles of "truth-seeking" and "non-truth seeking" as a demarcation - but those things in the category of "truth-seeking" would not be easily demarcated between academic lines, or methodological lines. One way of talking about this has been implicit this whole time, I have made reference often to "academic disciplines" and anyone would be hard pressed to use this word without having in the background an idea of "non-academic disciplines." This indeed I will tentatively say should be our demarcation as opposed to something that is "philosophy" or "science" or "sociology." What demarcates something as academic would of course need to be worked out - but some simple criteria might involve the need (1st) to be rational, as Richard Rorty would have us use the word rational or (2nd) even going so far as to be pragmatic. Perhaps (3rd) Having that information being peer-reviewable, but not merely by the peers within a falsely demarcated discipline. Rather by peers in OTHER disciplines to see where that overlap comes in.

For example: the intensive experimental lab scientists would do well to talk to the inductive, non experimental "scientists" theorizing about ID...why? Because based on the two groups finding inconsistent (or Nietzche forbid consistent) evidence - we can then determine what is good or bad "truth seeking" what is, in effect, good or bad science. THIS is a demarcation that seems more valuable.

If String Theory or ID or Acupressure or Phenomenology is going to succeed or fail as something to be researched, studied, applied and taught to students - it needs to succeed for reasons that it is valuable, historicallyistoricaly relevant to our human pursuit of wisdom or truth. Not for reasons of a false arrogance concerning the output of "X group". Not because of bias against something that is different or taboo to our rational sensibilities. Not for a lack of research funding or possibilities. Not for a lack of courage to have one's core foundational beliefs challenged and shaken. Whatever it is we seem to call "truth" needs to be given that title and value - on better reasons that academic elitism or bigotry. Aristotle let us know that we cannot begin our pursuit without taking into consideration information from at least three areas. The Wise, the common folk and the world around us. I think its important to remember that all three have their own value to start inquiry - and of course, every new day must involve a new Ursprunglichen into truth.