Talk:Science: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Nancy Sculerati MD
(→‎Mofdifications: corrected spelling)
imported>David Martin
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
{{checklist
|                abc = Science
|                cat1 = Science
|                cat2 = Philosophy
|                cat3 =
|          cat_check = N
|              status = 2
|        underlinked = N
|            cleanup = Y
|                  by = [[User:David Martin|David Martin]] 18:47, 15 May 2007 (CDT)
}}
==Mofdifications==
==Mofdifications==



Revision as of 17:47, 15 May 2007


Article Checklist for "Science"
Workgroup category or categories Science Workgroup, Philosophy Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article? No
Basic cleanup done? Yes
Checklist last edited by David Martin 18:47, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.






Mofdifications

I put here the reasons for some changes.

  • I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatural. The text stated that science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
  • I also deleted all reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
  • I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

--Matthias Brendel 06:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)

RE

  • I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

Perhaps a link to articles in Economics and Politics where such discussions are relevant may be useful for a variety of reasons David Tribe 16:11, 7 February 2007 (CST)