Abstract
Parts of the politically conservative block in the United States have a long history of “science denialism”. As a means to explore the nature of the New Demarcation Problem (Holman and Wilholt, 2022) and its relation to the original Popperian demarcation problem this paper considers an example of each. The first is the movement to undermine the status of Darwinian evolution as the scientific explanation of human origins. The second is the “sound science” movement which has sought to challenge a significant amount of the science that undergirds environmental regulation. As means of explaining what is wrong with creationism, multiple philosophers have framed the issues in terms of the Popperian Demarcation Problem (e.g., Kitcher 1983). Drawing on such work, Sven Ove Hansson (2017) has compared and categorized both creationism and conservative critiques of environmental science as pseudoscience. However, while some of the rhetorical tactics are shared, I will argue that a closer analysis of the “sound science” movement (e.g., Milloy 2016) reveals—at least on some occasions—a rejection of science that is infused with and/or dependent on a set of values that he (and fellow conservatives) do not share (e.g. in commenting on his shaping of the Trump EPA policy Milloy averred: “I do have a bias. I’m all for the coal industry, the fossil fuel industry. Wealth is what makes people happy, not pristine air” quoted in Korman 2018). Ultimately, I argue Hansson is right only in part. Both debates share a number of features (e.g., a struggle over the cultural authority of science) and are rightfully both categorized as problems of demarcation. However, the nature of the debate is importantly different. Whereas creation science can be seen as an example of wishful thinking, in some environmental cases conservatives are rejecting science that fails to be “value-apt”, a rational response to science infused with unshared values (John 2019). This distinction illustrates an important difference between the new and old demarcation problems. Whereas the Popperian Demarcation Problem concerns what makes inquiry scientific, the New Demarcation Problem turns on an account of the proper role for science to play in a liberal democracy and what science must be like to be able to fulfill that role. Hansson, S. O. (2017). Science denial as a form of pseudoscience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 63, 39-47. Holman, B., & Wilholt, T. (2022). The new demarcation problem. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 91, 211-220. John, S. (2019). Science, truth and dictatorship: Wishful thinking or wishful speaking?. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 78, 64-72. Kitcher, P. (1983). Abusing science: The case against creationism. MIT press. Kormann, C. (2018). Scott Pruitt's crusade against “secret science” could be disastrous for public health. The New Yorker, 26. Milloy, S. J. (2001). Junk science judo: Self-defense against health scares & scams. Cato Institute. Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Routledge.
