Changes

The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought).  The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter.  The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is "scientific" if it is accepted by the "scientific community," and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.

The schools of thought identified above can be grouped into two broad categories: those which demarcate science in objective terms (positivism and falsificationism), and those which demarcate science in subjective terms (the remaining schools of thought).  The objective schools of thought conceptualize science as something which can be objectively identified based on independent criteria -- essentially, an idea is scientific or unscientific regardless of what anybody thinks of the matter.  The subjective schools of thought conceptualize science as ''what scientists think'' or ''what scientists do'' -- thus an idea is "scientific" if it is accepted by the "scientific community," and ceases to be scientific if it is rejected by the same community.

This issue becomes scientific in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate techtonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies.  Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is "advanced for religious purposes."  Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.

This issue becomes important in the [[evolutionism]] vs. [[creationism]] and [[plate tectonics]] vs. [[expanding earth]] controversies.  Typically, evolutionists use arguments which assume a subjective definition of science -- creationism is unscientific because it is rejected by most scientists, or because it (supposedly) does not have peer-reviewed journals, or because it is "advanced for religious purposes."  Creationists, on the other hand, typically use arguments that assume an objective definition of science -- for example, [[common descent]] is not science, because it cannot be experimentally tested.

[[Category: Science]]

[[Category: Science]]

[[Category: Philosophy]]

[[Category: Philosophy]]