| Revision as of 23:09, 10 November 2005 editMshecket (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users785 edits I would not merge with psuedoscience← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:09, 18 December 2005 edit undoHaiduc (talk | contribs)15,071 edits Protoscience merge?!Next edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| 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) | 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) | ||
| == Protoscience merge?! == | |||
| Protoscience is neither inherently or necessarily controversial, and thus the merge is no more appropriate than a merge with any other topic on science. ] 00:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:09, 18 December 2005
 | This 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)
Protoscience merge?!
Protoscience is neither inherently or necessarily controversial, and thus the merge is no more appropriate than a merge with any other topic on science. Haiduc 00:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)