It seems intuitively true that science gives us ‘objective knowledge’ about the natural world. But why is that the case? And, relatedly, why do other disciplines, like astrology or homeopathy, fail to give us such ‘objective knowledge’? In other words, how do we demarcate science from pseudoscience? Popular philosophical answers in the past have focused on the application of a rigid scientific method, but there are various reasons why this approach is bound to fail. Instead, the debate has shifted to focusing on scientific objectivity–potentially as a social good. In this fika talk, I will review some of the classic arguments and views in the related debates on the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience, and about scientific objectivity.