| Revision as of 00:09, 18 December 2005 editHaiduc (talk | contribs)15,071 edits Protoscience merge?!← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:53, 29 December 2005 edit undoOrzetto (talk | contribs)3,163 edits →I would not merge with psuedoscienceNext 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) | ||
| 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) | |||
| == Protoscience merge?! == | == Protoscience merge?! == | ||
Revision as of 00:53, 29 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)
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? --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)