Talk:Scientific method/Draft
Alternative article: User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method
I finished the prototype of my alternative article, which is here:
User:Matthias Brendel/Scientific method
I think it is:
1) Much better structured.
2) Much more textbook like (I had courses in philosophy of science)
3) Much more unbiased.
4) Much more focused on the important things.
5) Much more informative for the laymen, who want to get some quick information, what scientific method consist of.
I suggest to take that article and continue from that article. I suggest that we incorporate from Gareth' article step by step parts, if they are really important and missing from my article.
It is however much worse in spelling and style, since I am not a native English. So please copy-edit it, moreover, reformulate the sentences! The apripriate references are also missing, but those can be obtained from Garet's article.
I just think that my article is a better framework.
--Matthias Brendel 07:43, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Matthias, the difficulty with starting a competing article is that you in essence ask other contributors to replace what they have worked on with your work. Who will make that decision? I'd rather not, because I have no interest in alienating other contributors. Besides, the only ones who ought to make the decision are philosophers of science, and we don't have any such philosophers active right now (that I know of). No philosophy editor is going to become active only to say, "Your work is out, and your work is in." So we have no way, no mechanism, whereby the hard work of one contributor can entirely replace the hard work of another contributor.
Sorry to say it, but the only thing we are set up to do, right now, is to collaborate--not to replace. --Larry Sanger 09:06, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Thanks Mathias. There is a clear difference of style and intent behind the two versions. I'm not going to comment on the content, but what motivated my version was the wish to produce an article that is readable by a lay reader, in requiring no specialised prior knowledge. It was not intended to be exhaustive (the length does not allow this), but intended as a sampler, an introduction to some of the issues, in the way that Biology is not remotely exhaustive, but is provocative for the reader in its own, different way. It was certainly intended to be anything but a textbook chapter. I've restructured it in light of the comments aired about this version. I think one way forward might be to add a "See also" section that directs readers to the type of specialised issues that you allude to in your article.Gareth Leng 09:28, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Gareth: You know my opinion. Your article is a non-organized collection of some of your favourite ideas, philosophers, examples and citations. It has no structure. It is not a textbook chapter, and THAT IS THE PROBLEM. Your article is a magazine article, not an encyclopedia article.
--Matthias Brendel 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)
Larry:
1) You say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing.
2) I cannot collaborate with this article, since IT'S BASIC STRUCTURE IS BAD.
3) So as I see what happens here that if something is started and a lot of effort was made then whatever wrong the direction is, you do not dare to correct the mistake. THAT IS BAD.
4) What is with my effort. Shall I just throw out my article? You did not say that "do not do this other version, we will trow it out anyway".
5) I could slowly replace everything according to my article, but
a) Why is that better? b) It is a lot of quarel.
6) My suggestion is the same: let us take my article as a basis, since its STRUCTURE is better, and put into my article Gareth's work.
The question is: shall we replace the furniture of a good building with some good pieces of furniture from a wrong building, or vice versa? Or just destroyout the good building, and keep the bad one with some good pieces, but wrong structure?
7) This is your project. If nobody else is responsible then you should be responsible for decision, or you HAVE to find somebody, who can make a decision. I can make it. Are you a leader or just sitting?
--Matthias Brendel 10:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)
I have to chime in here after watching this proceed for so long. The wikipedia article is not better. It is different. In my opinion it is actually very confusing to read. Yes, the CZ version reads like a magazine article, is this is critiscism or a complement? Why can't we have both? We desperately need a more approachable article than the one on wikipedia. I am certain that most of the people that read this article will be high school students, therefore a magazine-like article is good from that perspective. I don't see why an extension of these themes cannot be explored at a higher level in sister articles?
With regard to you first comment, "you say we should not replace an existing article with another. Exactly this what was Gareth doing". This does not make sense. Yes, there was an article imported from wikipedia but authors are encouraged to write their own. Gareth started with a blank sheet of paper not a wikipedia article. Maybe you had significant input to the wikipedia version, if so it would be good to work with Gareth incorporating some of the better ideas. Chris Day (Talk) 11:03, 6 March 2007 (CST)