View source for Non-science

{{Not to be confused with|Pseudoscience|Nonsense}}
{{short description|Area of study that is not scientific}}
A '''non-science''' is an area of study that is not scientific, especially one that is not a natural science or a social science that is an object of [[scientific inquiry]].  In this model, [[history]], [[art]], and [[religion]] are all examples of non-sciences.<ref name="Hansson">{{Cite book | url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/pseudo-science/ | title=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|author-last=Hansson | author-first=Sven Ove | chapter=Science and Pseudo-Science | date=2017 | publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University | editor-last=Zalta | editor-first=Edward N. | edition=Summer 2017}}</ref><ref name="Enger 2014">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5udKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA10|title=Concepts in Biology|last1=Enger|first1=Eldon|last2=Ross|first2=Frederick|last3=Bailey|first3=David|date=2014|publisher=McGraw-Hill Higher Education|isbn=9780077418281|pages=10|language=en|quote=Both scientists and nonscientists seek to gain information and improve understanding in their fields of study. The differences between science and nonscience are based on the assumptions and methods used to gather and organize information and, most important, the way the assumptions are tested. The difference between a scientist and a nonscientist is that a scientist continually challenges and tests principles and assumptions to determine cause-and-effect relationships. A nonscientist may not be able to do so or may not believe that this is important. For example, a historian may have the opinion that, if President Lincoln had not appointed Ulysses S. Grant to be a general in the Union Army, the Confederate States of America would have won the Civil War. Although there can be considerable  argument about the topic, there is no way that it can be tested. Therefore, such speculation about historical events is not scientific. This does not mean that history is not a respectable field of study, only that it is not science. Historians simply use the standards of critical thinking that are appropriate to their field of study and that can provide insights into the role military leadership plays in the outcome of conflicts.}}</ref>

== Classifying knowledge ==
{{Main|Demarcation problem}}
Since the 17th century, some writers have used the word ''science'' to exclude some areas of studies, such as [[the arts]] and the [[Liberal arts education|liberal arts]].<ref>{{OEtymD|science|accessdate=2018-10-08}}</ref>  The word ''nonscience'', to describe non-scientific academic disciplines, was first used in the middle of the 19th century.<ref>{{Cite Merriam-Webster|Nonscience|accessdate=2018-10-08}}</ref>

In some cases, it can be difficult to identify exact boundaries between science and non-science.  The [[demarcation problem]] is the study of the difficulties in determining whether certain fields of study, near the boundaries of science and non-science, should be considered as one or the other.  No single test has yet been devised that can clearly separate science from non-science, but some factors, taken as a whole and evaluated over time, are commonly used.<ref name="Nickles">{{Cite book|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/rationality-historicist/|title=Historicist Theories of Scientific Rationality|work=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|last=Nickles|first=Thomas|date=2017|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Summer 2017|quote=What demarcates science from nonscience and pseudoscience is sustained support (over historical time) of a puzzle-solving tradition, not the application of a nonexistent "scientific method" to determine whether the claims are true or false or probable to some degree.}}</ref>  In the view of [[Thomas Kuhn]], these factors include the desire of scientists to investigate a question as if it were a puzzle.  Kuhn's view of science is also focused on the process of scientific inquiry, rather than the result.<ref name="Nickles" />

[[Boundary-work]] is the process of advocating for a desired outcome in the process of classifying fields of study that are near the borders.  The rewards associated with winning a particular classification suggest that the boundary between science and non-science is [[Social constructionism|socially constructed]] and [[Ideology|ideologically motivated]] rather than representing a stark natural difference between science and non-science.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gieryn |first=Thomas F. |title=Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists |journal=American Sociological Review |volume=48 |year=1983 |issue=6 |pages=781–795 |doi=10.2307/2095325 |jstor=2095325}}</ref>  The belief that scientific knowledge (e.g., biology) is more valuable than other forms of knowledge (e.g., ethics) is called ''[[scientism]]''.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=o-pGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT19|title=Scientism: Science, Ethics and Religion: Science, Ethics and Religion|last=Stenmark|first=Mikael|date=2018-01-12|publisher=Routledge|isbn=9781351815390|pages=19–20|language=en}}</ref>

== Areas of non-science ==
{{Seealso|Outline of academic disciplines#Humanities}}
Non-science includes all areas of study that are not science.<ref name="Hansson" />  Non-science encompasses all of the [[humanities]], including:

* history,<ref name="Hansson" /><ref name="Enger 2014" /> including the [[history of science]],
* the [[language arts]], such as [[literature]] and language learning, 
* [[philosophy]], ethics, and religion, and 
* art, including music, performing arts, fine arts, and [[Handicraft|crafts]].

The philosopher [[Martin Mahner]] proposed calling these academic fields the ''parasciences'', to distinguish them from disreputable forms of non-science, such as [[pseudoscience]].<ref name="Hansson" />

Non-sciences offer information about the [[meaning of life]], [[human values]], the [[human condition]], and ways of interacting with other people, including studies of [[Culture|cultures]], [[morality]] and [[ethics]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://philosophynow.org/issues/96/Science_and_Non-Science|title=Science and Non-Science|last=Lazorko|first=Pamela|date=2013|website=Philosophy Now|access-date=2018-04-17|volume=96}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UVJ3AgAAQBAJ&pg=178|title=Darwin's Gift: To Science and Religion|last=Ayala|first=Francisco|date=2007-05-07|publisher=Joseph Henry Press|isbn=9780309661744|pages=178|language=en|quote=Successful as it is, and universally encompassing as its subject is, a scientific view of the world is hopelessly incomplete. Matters of value and meaning are outside science's scope.}}</ref>

== Areas of disagreement ==
[[File:Illustration of overlapping communities.svg|alt=diagram representing multiple connected and overlapping groups|thumb|Some philosophers see knowledge as the product of overlapping communities of knowledge.  Others try to find a sharp division between science and non-science.]]

Philosophers disagree about whether areas of study involving [[abstract concepts]], such as [[pure mathematics]], are scientific or non-scientific.<ref>Bishop, Alan (1997).[https://books.google.com/books?id=9AgrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54 "Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education."] Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.  p. 54.</ref><ref name="Bunge 1998">{{cite book|title=Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory|last1=Bunge|first1=Mario|date=1998|publisher=Routledge|isbn=0-765-80413-1|edition=revised|volume=1|location=New York, NY|pages=3–50|chapter=The Scientific Approach}}</ref>

[[Interdisciplinarity|Interdisciplinary studies]] may cover knowledge-generating work that includes both scientific and non-scientific studies. [[Archaeology]] is an example of a field that borrows from both the natural sciences and history.<ref name="Hansson" />

Fields of inquiry may change status over time.  For many centuries, [[alchemy]] was accepted as scientific:  it produced some useful information, and it supported experiments and open inquiry in the pursuit of understanding the physical world. Since the 20th century, it has been considered a pseudoscience.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/alchemy-may-not-been-pseudoscience-we-thought-it-was-180949430/|title=Alchemy May Not Have Been the Pseudoscience We All Thought It Was|last=Conniff|first=Richard|date=February 2014|work=Smithsonian Magazine|access-date=2018-04-16|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dwFKDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA8|title=Pseudoscience: The Conspiracy Against Science|last=Hecht |first=David K.|chapter=Pseudoscience and the Pursuit of Truth |editor-last1=Kaufman|editor-first1=Allison B.|editor-last2=Kaufman|editor-first2=James C.|date=2018-01-05|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=9780262037426|pages=8–9|language=en}}</ref>  Modern [[chemistry]], which developed out of alchemy, is considered a major natural science.

== Alternative systems ==
Some philosophers, such as [[Paul Feyerabend]], object to the effort to classify knowledge into science and non-science.<ref name="Taylor1996">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NdkDiqh5ySYC&pg=PA41|title=Defining Science: A Rhetoric of Demarcation|last=Taylor|first=C.A.|publisher=University of Wisconsin Press|year=1996|isbn=9780299150341|series=Rhetoric of the Human Sciences Series|page=41|lccn=96000180}}</ref>  The distinction is artificial, as there is little or nothing that ties together all of the bodies of knowledge that are called "sciences".<ref name="Taylor1996" />

Some systems of organizing knowledge separate [[systematic knowledge]] from non-systematic methods of knowing or learning something, such as personal experiences, [[intuition]], and [[innate knowledge]]. {{Lang|de|[[Wissenschaft]]}} is a broad concept that encompasses reliable knowledge without making a distinction between subject area.<ref name="Hansson" />  The ''Wissenschaft'' concept is more useful than the distinction between science and non-science in distinguishing between knowledge and pseudo-knowledge, as the errors made in all forms of [[pseudo-scholarship]], from [[pseudohistory]] to [[pseudoscience]], are similar.<ref name="Hansson" />  This ''Wissenschaft'' concept is used in the 2006 list of [[Fields of Science and Technology]] published by the [[Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development]], which defines "science and technology" as encompassing all humanistic disciplines, including religion and fine art.<ref>{{Citation|title=Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS) Classification in the Frascati Manual {DSTI/EAS/STP/NESTI(2006)19/FINAL)|date=2007|url=http://www.oecd.org/science/innovationinsciencetechnologyandindustry/38235147.pdf|author=Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators|publisher=Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development|language=en|access-date=28 April 2018}}</ref>

== See also ==

* [[Boundary object]] – an item, such as an animal hide, that can be legitimately studied in different ways by different fields of study
* [[Branches of science]]
* [[Liberal arts education|Liberal arts]]
*[[Hard and soft science]]
*[[Carper's fundamental ways of knowing]]

== References ==
<references />

== External links ==

* [https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/science-and-non-science-in-liberal-education Science and Non-Science in Liberal Education] in [[The New Atlantis (journal)|''The New Atlantis'']]
*[https://www.weeklystandard.com/daniel-sarewitz/all-ye-need-to-know Why the distinction between science and non-science matters to people]
*[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-should-not-try-to-absorb-religion-and-other-ways-of-knowing/ Science Should Not Try to Absorb Religion and Other Ways of Knowing] in ''[[Scientific American]]''
[[zh-yue:非科學]]
[[Category:Knowledge]]
[[Category:Philosophy of science]]