| Revision as of 00:56, 29 December 2005 editOrzetto (talk | contribs)3,163 edits →Protoscience merge?!← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:50, 30 January 2006 edit undoGwyndon (talk | contribs)264 edits →I would not merge with psuedoscienceNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| I agree, no merge. Controversial<math>\neq</math>Junk. Of course one side of the controversy will likely claim the other is pseudoscience, but we do have a NPOV policy here, right? --] 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | I agree, no merge. Controversial<math>\neq</math>Junk. Of course one side of the controversy will likely claim the other is pseudoscience, but we do have a NPOV policy here, right? --] 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| : Agree with Orzetto on Controversial<math>\neq</math>Pseudo. While a sound scepticism is appropriate concerning fringe scientists in an encyclopedic context, not everything that is controversial now is be 'pseudo' or 'junk'. Darwinist theories, contended in school boards and courtrooms in earlier centuries (ape case) and now (unintelligent schooldesign), with the flaws and gaps they leave, could very well be called "Controversial science", as they are, in part, based on assumptions. See also science theories on the smallest parts. Controversial over the ages. | |||
| == Protoscience merge?! == | == Protoscience merge?! == | ||
Revision as of 13:50, 30 January 2006
 | 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)
I agree, no merge. ControversialJunk. Of course one side of the controversy will likely claim the other is pseudoscience, but we do have a NPOV policy here, right? --Orzetto 00:53, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Junk. Of course one side of the controversy will likely claim the other is pseudoscience, but we do have a NPOV policy here, right? --- Agree with Orzetto on ControversialPseudo. While a sound scepticism is appropriate concerning fringe scientists in an encyclopedic context, not everything that is controversial now is be 'pseudo' or 'junk'. Darwinist theories, contended in school boards and courtrooms in earlier centuries (ape case) and now (unintelligent schooldesign), with the flaws and gaps they leave, could very well be called "Controversial science", as they are, in part, based on assumptions. See also science theories on the smallest parts. Controversial over the ages.
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)
I agree with Haiduc. No merge is appropriate. --Orzetto 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)