Misplaced Pages

Talk:Controversial science: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactivelyNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:20, 12 September 2005 editMoink (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,449 edits link to deletion debate, move expand tag here from article space  Revision as of 23:09, 10 November 2005 edit undoMshecket (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users785 edits I would not merge with psuedoscienceNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{oldafdfull|date=3 September 2005|result=no consensus, keep with possible merge with ]|votepage=Controversial science}} {{oldafdfull|date=3 September 2005|result=no consensus, keep with possible merge with ]|votepage=Controversial science}}
{{expand}} {{expand}}

== I would not merge with psuedoscience ==

Merging this article with ] would suggest that all science is either unanimously accepted (Science with a capital "S") or it's not science at all (pseudoscience), with no allowance for a gray area where developing and competing theories can stew while we try to figure out which of the former categories it belongs to. What areas of study belong to "controversial science" as opposed to "psuedoscience" is another story. There are definitely some theories (such as ]) about which there is no ''real'' scientific controversy. --- ] 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:09, 10 November 2005

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2005. The result of the discussion was no consensus, keep with possible merge with pseudoscience.


I would not merge with psuedoscience

Merging this article with pseudoscience would suggest that all science is either unanimously accepted (Science with a capital "S") or it's not science at all (pseudoscience), with no allowance for a gray area where developing and competing theories can stew while we try to figure out which of the former categories it belongs to. What areas of study belong to "controversial science" as opposed to "psuedoscience" is another story. There are definitely some theories (such as intelligent design) about which there is no real scientific controversy. --- Mike 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)