Dynamics of the Demarcation Status of Theories

This article advances the discussion by S.Yu. Kolomiytsev and N.I. Martishina concerning the limitations of falsifiability criteria within the scientific demarcation problem. The subject of the study is the dynamics of a theory’s scientific status during its development and the relationship between this dynamic and classical demarcation criteria. The methodology employs an evolutionary model that frames scientific status as a variable attribute of a theory’s life cycle. This model de finesfive sequential stages in a theoretical construct’s evolution: metaphysical (speculative idea), protoscientific (testable hypothesis), scientific (verified theory), aposcientific (outdated but utilized model), and exscientif c (rejected concept). The terms protoscience, aposcience, and exscience serve as author definitions for stages 2, 4, and 5, respectively. The main result establishes the specific, context-dependent function of classical demarcation criteria as triggers for transitions between these stages: potential falsifiability enables the shift from metaphysics to protoscience; empirical verification drives the progression from protoscience to science; the accumulation of anomalies or emergence of a competing theory signals a move from science to aposcience; irrefutable falsification underpins the transition from aposcience to exscience. The analysis demonstrates that these criteria operate not as universal indicators of scientificity, but as mechanisms governing the evolution of demarcation status. Furthermore, the model reveals the potential for a theory to return from aposcience to science through modification, highlighting the prevalence of evolutionary correction over radical paradigm shifts. The conclusions emphasize the practical value of this approach. It provides a systematic tool for assessing a theory’s epistemological status using stage-relevant criteria, classifying transitional knowledge states, optimizing scientific resource allocation, and integrating the frameworks of K. Popper, T. Kuhn, and I. Lakatos into a unified dynamic scheme. Critically, the model offers a solution to the core theoretical difficulties regarding the applicability and limitations of demarcation criteria raised in the Kolomiytsev-Martishina discussion.