Misplaced Pages

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Karlpoppery (talk | contribs) at 04:25, 23 April 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

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. Controversial${\displaystyle \neq }$Junk. 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)

Agree with Orzetto on Controversial${\displaystyle \neq }$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.

Comment copied from Pseudoscience discussion page: "Regarding the suggestion to move that article here, as per the discussion on the relevant discussion page, that article does not belong here but represents another stage in the scientific process. It is sourced, the concept exists and is separate from "pseudoscience". Why confuse the two???" 11:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, skepticism should be applied to every claim, not just "fringe" claims, before accepting them. The degree to which one accepts something should ideally be only determined by evidence, soundness of a claim's logic, adherence to scientific method, etc., ie. by the argument itself, not the person proposing it. Be skeptical of the argument, not the person (the aforementioned "fringe scientists"). Oh, and so-called "pseudoscientific", "unscientific", or "pathological science" things can be put into a comprehensive encyclopedia provided that there's enough information available. See N-rays for example. 170.215.83.212 03:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This should not be merged. They are two different things: "Pseudoscience" is something that does not adhere to scientific methodology while claiming to be science, whereas "controversial science" usually follows the scientific method, but the conclusion is disputed by the scientific community. They are NOT the same. 170.215.83.212 03:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A good example would be the theory of continental drift; this was hugely controversial for decades, until it gradually came into mainstream acceptance. It's also based on the scientific method, however - it simply produced a finding so absurd ( at the time ) as to be rejected almost universally when it was introduced. This is quite distinct from something like intelligent design, which is anti-science. FireWeed 21:27, 10 January 2007 (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)

I agree with Haiduc. No merge is appropriate. --Orzetto 00:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

YES, move some stuff to protoscience and the rest to pseudoscience, leave a redirect to "proto" from here. MaxPont 11:16, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Fringe science merge

• Support — Omegatron 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
• Support = John Carter 17:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support -Fradulent Ideas 13:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that the prevailing mood is one for supporting the merge. So I'm going to be WP:BOLD and do it. Fradulent Ideas 13:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)