"The demarcation problem — the attempt to logically separate science from pseudoscience — has come to be seen as a nostalgic issue good for thinkers still infatuated with Popper, or as demonstrably irresolvable and even best avoided after Laudan’s famous critique. This is somewhat strange, considering that there seems to be clear distinctions between typical pseudosciences, say like astrology or homeopathy, and obviously valid forms of science, like fundamental physics or evolutionary biology. We live in a world in which the label of “science” has social cachet, and often brings in a large amount of resources. The homeopathy industry, for instance, is a multi-billion dollar per year production that literally gives nothing in return to the public, and in some cases positively endangers people’s health and lives. In light of all the above, I re-analyze both Popper’s original concept and Laudan’s argument for why demarcation is impossible, attempting to move past both through a discussion of a more complex landscape of philosophical possibilities."