The following text discusses philosophy of science.
The demarcation problem asks what distinguishes science from non-science. Karl Popper proposed falsifiability: science makes claims that could, in principle, be proven wrong by evidence. This criterion excludes theories that explain everything, since they can't be tested. Yet critics note that scientists don't instantly abandon falsified theories—they often revise auxiliary assumptions first. Moreover, some legitimate science (like evolutionary claims about the past) isn't readily falsifiable in Popper's sense. The search for a single, sharp demarcation criterion has largely given way to recognition that the boundaries of science are contested and context-dependent.
What conclusion about the demarcation problem does the text suggest?
Falsifiability perfectly distinguishes science from non-science
No single sharp criterion may exist; boundaries may be contested and contextual
Scientists always immediately abandon falsified theories
The demarcation problem has been completely solved
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. The text concludes "the search for a single, sharp demarcation criterion has largely given way to recognition that the boundaries of science are contested and context-dependent."
- Evidence: Sharp criterion abandoned; contested and contextual boundaries.
- Reasoning: Problems with proposed criteria suggest none is definitive.
- Conclusion: No single criterion; boundaries are fuzzy.
Choice A is incorrect because critics noted problems with falsifiability. Choice C is incorrect because scientists "often revise auxiliary assumptions first." Choice D is incorrect because the search for a solution continues.