Main Article Content
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a different perspective on the problem of demarcation. It presents the results achieved by J. Hintikka and the Finnish school of the philosophy of science. However, the origins of this approach can be traced to the work of R. Carnap and Y. Bar-Hillel. The controversy over confirmationism and falsificationism is based on false assumptions. We need both probability and informative content. Our theories must have a connection with reality (high probability) and reflect its deep structure (information). Expected informational content allows us to define a “negative” demarcation criterion between science and pseudoscience.
Y. Bar-Hillel, R. Carnap, Semantic information, „The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science” 1953, 14, s. 147–157.
S. Fuller, The demarcation of science: a problem whose demise has been greatly exaggerated, „Pacific Philosophical Quarterly” 1985, 66, s. 329–341.
A. Grobler, Metodologia Nauk, Znak, Kraków 2006.
J. Hintikka, Logic, language – games and information, Claredon Press, Oxford 1972.
J. Hintikka, On semantic information [w:] J. Hintikka, P. Suppes (red.), Information and inference, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht 1970, s. 3–28.
J. Hintikka, Surface and depth information [w:] J. Hintikka, P. Suppes (red.), Information and inference, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht 1970, s. 263–298.
M. Kaplan, Decision Theory as Philosophy, Cambridge University Press 1996.
H.E. Kyburg Jr., Recent work in inductive logic, „American Philosophical Quarterly” 1964, 4, s. 249–287.
L. Laudan, Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London 1977.
L. Laudan, The demise of the demarcation problem [w:] R.S. Cohan, L. Laudan (red.), Physics, Philosophy, and Psychoanalysis, Reidel, Dordrecht 1982, s. 111–127.
I. Niiniluoto, Scientific Progress, „Synthese” 1980, 45, s. 427–464.
K.R. Popper, Logika odkrycia naukowego, Aletheia, Warszawa 2002.