Explain whether Daniel Laudan’s critique of Karl Popper is both fair and convincing (in other words, does Laudan accurately represent Popper’s position and if so, do you think Laudan objection makes Popper’s view implausible
Laudan and Pigliucci disagree about whether there is a meaningful answer to the demarcation question.
Explain Laudan’s reasoning, where Pigliucci thinks Laudan goes wrong, and who you think is correct.
Explain why David.B Reskin think there isn’t a single answer to the demarcation problem.
