Simple theory of demarcation
We have encountered various theories that attempt to demarcate science from non-science. Consider this simple theory of demarcation (neither Popper, nor the judge in the Arkansas decision, nor Kuhn, actually hold this theory):
A theory is a scientific theory if and only if (a) it is falsifiable and (b) its basic commitments are treated as tentative by its proponents.
Assignment : Critically evaluate this simple theory in light of the morals we?ve learned from our discussions of scientific methodology.
1) Explain the two necessary (and jointly sufficient) conditions this theory identifies as criteria of demarcation. (e.g. What is it for a theory to be falsifiable? What is it to treat basic commitments of a theory as tentative?)
2) Do the best job you can to motivate this simple theory. Why might someone think that the simple theory is prima facie plausible? (In so doing, you might find it helpful to discuss examples [real or fictional] of scientific theories that meet these criteria, and/or theories that fail to meet these criteria and are intuitively not scientific.)
3) Do the best job you can of criticizing the simple theory. Why is the simple theory not, after reflection, an adequate theory of demarcation? (In so doing, you might find it helpful to discuss examples [real or fictional] of scientific theories that fail to satisfy the simple theory but are nevertheless intuitively scientific and/or theories that do satisfy the simple theory but are nevertheless not intuitively scientific.)
Note : Please make sure clearly address what questions you are answering.