Talk:Criticism of science: Difference between revisions

Philosophy: Science Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science

Links from this article which need disambiguation (check | fix): [[meaning]] For help fixing these links, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/Fixing a page. Added by WildBot | Tags to be removed | FAQ | Report a problem

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 March 2010. The result of the discussion was keep.

I want to merge the Criticism of Science article with the Antiscience article because they are both highly critical of the scientific method, scientism, reductionism, listing philosophical as well as political reasons. Both articles as far as content and source material go are almost entirely different, but I feel they compliment each other very well. I also feel that when merged, the 'antiscience' article should be moved into the "Criticisms" article because not all attitudes that are expressed are 100% anti science (even in the antiscience article itself) most are just fairly critical of science. If we merge into the criticism article were not confusing scientific criticism or philosophical reform with anti-scientific attitudes. ProductofSociety (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not have strong views, but I think a merge is likely to be difficult to do. Both articles need a lot of work, to make them more coherent and have a better flow. When that is done, it might be clearer whether merging is a good idea or not. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:11, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have no problem taking all the time necessary to merge the articles the best i can. Even if the two articles need work, there of the same nature and I feel that merging them together may in fact do them both some good in terms of quality.ProductofSociety (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm for this, the pages go together really well and if they were refined a little bit when merged they would both be in 10 times a better condition then they are now. Part of the reason that either article is a little loose is because they're missing complementary material, or bad wording. This can be easily fixed. Murderd2death (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose the merger. The two articles explore and describe different things. A science supporter or enthusiast may criticize some scientific issues but still recognize the merits of science - it is a constructive criticism. Antiscience refers to people or ideologies that do not recognize any merit on science - it is a vilification of science. Unobjectionable (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BatteryIncluded posted an alert at the top of the page that says:

"This article relies extensively on quotes that were previously collated by an advocacy or lobbying group. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. (January 2011)"

I don't exactly get what this is supposed to mean. I'm a bit flattered that someone would mistake this as group work but all in all I did a lot of the research, compiling, and editing by myself. I am not a group, and I'm not necessarily advocating anything in particular. Some of the views within the article itself are widely divorced from each other (for example, the final paragraph about the military industrial complex has little to do with the section about divination or ecophenomenology, aside from the fact that they're science related). I just compiled many perspectives that related to each other under the same section in the science article, and made it an article unto itself when it got to big.

He also added it to the category of "Anti-Intellectualism". I find that a bit crass. While these views are not held in the mainstay of scientific philosophy, none of the writers/sources in question have ever labeled themselves 'anti-intellectual', and (for the most part) have not been labeled anti-intellectual by anyone else (the exception being Paul Feyerabend's and his misattributed title as an 'enemy of Science'- misattributed because he's a philosopher of science and a science advocate).

I feel this category is being attached to this article as a pejorative, and through it, is suggesting that criticizing certain aspects of scientific method or philosophy is not an intellectual pursuit- or can not be pursued via the intellect. That The 'Anti-Intellectualism' article is part of the 'discrimination' portal on wikipedia doesn't help lessen my suspicion. (ProductofSociety (talk) 03:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]