Talk:Protoscience: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Subpagination Bot
m (Add {{subpages}} and remove checklist (details))
imported>Sandy Harris
(delete this article?)
Line 2: Line 2:


I am posting modified versions of the WP article both here and in the Norwegian WP - because I, in my article Ormus matter, classify the field as a protoscience.  It was strange to see that the thorough Pseudoscience discussion doesn't mention protoscience at all. I suppose it is mainly needed as a defense against the bloodthirsty WP hounds when they cry "Pseudoscience! Delete!". (As they cried while I in vain tried to plead protoscience status for my Ormus matter article there) [[User:Olav Næss|Olav Næss]] 10:00, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
I am posting modified versions of the WP article both here and in the Norwegian WP - because I, in my article Ormus matter, classify the field as a protoscience.  It was strange to see that the thorough Pseudoscience discussion doesn't mention protoscience at all. I suppose it is mainly needed as a defense against the bloodthirsty WP hounds when they cry "Pseudoscience! Delete!". (As they cried while I in vain tried to plead protoscience status for my Ormus matter article there) [[User:Olav Næss|Olav Næss]] 10:00, 6 April 2007 (CDT)
== Should this be deleted? ==
Is this just more nonsense from an Ormus believer trying to rationalise, or is proto-science a valid term used in History & philosophy of science? If the former, should we delete it?
If it stays, the examples need to change. The current three are Newton, Darwin and Ormus. Apart from the rather obvious objection that Ormus emphatically does not belong in such august company, I see another. To me, it seems there is nothing "proto-" about Newton's physics or Darwin's work. Perhaps Newton and others' alchemical research was proto-chemistry, but that's not what is being talked of here. [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:08, 1 June 2010

This article is basically copied from an external source and has not been approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition:  A field of study that appears to conform to the initial phase of the scientific method, but involves speculation. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category:  Philosophy [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  Pseudoscience
 Talk Archive:  none  English language variant:  British English

I am posting modified versions of the WP article both here and in the Norwegian WP - because I, in my article Ormus matter, classify the field as a protoscience. It was strange to see that the thorough Pseudoscience discussion doesn't mention protoscience at all. I suppose it is mainly needed as a defense against the bloodthirsty WP hounds when they cry "Pseudoscience! Delete!". (As they cried while I in vain tried to plead protoscience status for my Ormus matter article there) Olav Næss 10:00, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Should this be deleted?

Is this just more nonsense from an Ormus believer trying to rationalise, or is proto-science a valid term used in History & philosophy of science? If the former, should we delete it?

If it stays, the examples need to change. The current three are Newton, Darwin and Ormus. Apart from the rather obvious objection that Ormus emphatically does not belong in such august company, I see another. To me, it seems there is nothing "proto-" about Newton's physics or Darwin's work. Perhaps Newton and others' alchemical research was proto-chemistry, but that's not what is being talked of here. Sandy Harris 11:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:Protoscience&oldid=186281"