Display the fundamental differences between scientific, anti-scientific and extra-scientific knowledge

Scientific cognition has traditionally been the principal object of epistemological studies. As a rule it has been viewed as the most refined manifestation of cognition, while other methods are interpreted as less reliable, capable at the best case of serve as supplementary ones to scientific knowledge, And in many cases totally contradicting the scientific approach. To separate scientific knowledge from extra-scientific layers have found their realization in the task of demarcation. In general, it is possible to quote the following major logical specification. In order to denote any cognition which comes From the scientific one, it is worth to use the term "nonscientific", as the "non-" prefix may mean that the cognition simply Stands from the scientific one, or that the cognition contradicts to the scientific one. As for cognition which does Not contradict the scientific one, though no beyond its borders, maybe it is the most appropriate to use the term "extra-scientific" For the same, the notion "anti-scientific" bears a vivid expression of being to the scientific, and Therefore it is appropriate to use this notion To mark those concepts which are based on the norms and principles openly opposing the credits ones. Along with this, significant parts of these concepts do not openly declare their fundamental difference from science, but try to imitate It is called as not what is not known. Ambiguous science, "false science" and "quasi-science", for the corresponding prefixes denote the very fact of attempting to pass as science what is not science. Ambiguous, because the prefix "para-" may mean adjacency (in this meaning "parascience" is used by AA Ivin), as well as digression, deviation ("paras cience" is often used as a synonym of "false science" or "Pseudoscience") And thus thus due to this ambiguity it is worth to avoid using it.

It is necessary to note that there is a term in terminology in the classification of cognition forms existing beyond the borders of science. Thus A. А. Ivin defines parascience as teachings existing beyond science but are connected with it by means of common commonness of subject matter Or science deals with the search for general regularities which are open for inter-subject checks, many anti-scientific teachings are characterized by an emphasis on the individual individual character of experience of bearers of occult knowledge - thus, an extrasensory Claims to possess Skill which remain inaccessible to other people. On the contrary to the open and public character of scientific knowledge, mystical knowledge is haloed with mystery, and the way to become familiar with it is not through argument of verification, but initiation, which Pre supply acceptance of things in good faith and complicates manifestations of critical approach. Moreover, such mystery is another reason of psychological attractiveness of a number of pseudoscientific teachings - their esoteric character creates the effect of elitism, flattering verity of those who possess a sense of having Has chosen and have access to knowledge restricted for a narrow circle of people. Thus adepts of such teachings may have a hostile attitude towards public discussion of "secret" knowledge.

One of the most essential differences between scientific and pseudoscientific facilities lies in existence of self-reflection in science. Scientists are aware of the limited character of acquired knowledge, and indicate the measure of its reliability. On the other hand They are not going to work