Understanding the demarcation between science and what is believed not to be science
Philosophy as the mother of all science helps us to understand explicitly the existing limits between what is scientific and what is not scientific, it is important to be aware that in order to establish this line of demarcation there will always be a debate between thoughts that affirm the scientific character of a phenomenon that perhaps others deny the scientific character of the same. However, the aim of this post is to try to decipher how philosophy can help us to understand this sense of demarcation between what is science and what is not.
Perhaps we think that because of how old this debate is, everything is defined and understood in relation to knowing what really is science and what is not, however, as time has passed until today, more ground has been gained to establish the basis of what we know today as the scientific method.
The bases of the scientific method is not a rule without equanon that can satisfy the curiosity of the human being so that the controversy is not so active in current times, so that today there is still controversy when it comes to delimit what is a science.
Understanding the problem of demarcation between what is science and what we think it is not
It is undeniable the fact that man has evolved in various aspects, so we can say that over time the human being has been gaining new knowledge, new theories and technological advances that help to improve the natural processes in which he is involved, which is why we must keep in mind that today we generate a debate that perhaps in the past was not due as it is generated today.
In spite of all the evolution that has taken place, and also of the explanations that have been obtained from the solid bases of the scientific method, it turns out that not everything is so convincing.
In classical times we could still see that we were in that struggle to go beyond what could demonstrate our thoughts, since there was a time when science was not conceived as it is today.
Another aspect that helped to sustain an interest in knowing what really was science and what was not science was the crisis generated by the debate between science and religion in trying to explain the origins of life.
As a conclusion I think that there should not be a line of demarcation to differentiate what is science or not, I think the mistake we have made as human society is to try to differentiate between what is science and what is not, especially considering the fact that we have wanted to differentiate what is science and what is not in the sense that some aspects have been demonstrated and others have not, but the fact that it cannot be demonstrated does not take away that path close to science that many aspects of the universe, our planet, life and the origin of everything that exists and revolves around us have.