Category talk:Protoscience

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Am I the only one who finds it strange to see a great number of computer science / technology endeavors listed here, given the definition of Protoscience at the top of the page? — B.Bryant 06:46, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know enough about those fields to answer... but I find it extremely strange to see things like astrology listed. Astrology, like homeopathy, aromatherapy, and some of the other rubbish listed here, doesn't follow the definition of using the scientific method. Astrology is also the clearest case of a listing that can't with a straight face be called "a new area" of anything, let alone "a new area of scientific endeavor". Does this category serve any useful purpose? JamesMLane 07:06, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Astrology definitely wouldn't get in. However, practitioners of some fields are highly given to wishful thinking - David Gerard 07:22, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And prone to enshrine their wishes in Wikipedia... — B.Bryant 07:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
re "I don't know enough about those fields to answer", my point is that things like "Artificial Intelligence" and "Autonomous Robot" are immature technologies, but not empirical sciences at all. Other stuff, like "Computational Theory" and "Information Theory", are very well established fields, even milestones of 20th Century thought. — B.Bryant 07:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
re "Does this category serve any useful purpose?", I can't see that it does anything beyond letting people express their opinion about the validity of some field they want to promote from pseudoscience or demote from science. — B.Bryant 07:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
After writing my comment, I deleted the tag from Homeopathy, and I see that David Gerard gave the boot to Astrology. The category still provides some sort of fig leaf of legitimacy for the likes of Dowsing, Graphology and Perpetual motion, though. I suspect that, as long as the category exists, it will be an open invitation to abuse. JamesMLane 10:18, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Based on my knowledge of linguistics, I removed "computational linguistics", which is mainstream science, as well as "glottochronology" and "lexicostatistics", which will remain speculative forever, since they are not really falsifiable. Burschik 10:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not to be outdone, I removed a bunch of other technologies (mostly in the CS field) and some other well-established stuff (such as information theory), and a few pseudosciences while I was at it. We should look at List of protosciences too, while we're at it. Or better yet, ditch the category altogether. — B.Bryant 14:44, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I created the category, originally for Alternative medicine (which belongs in both Category:Pseudoscience and this one, as different bits belong to each) and initially filled it out. I think it's useful and says something, even if its membership is going to be contentious. The present criterion (not a science yet, but being approached in a scientific way) should be good enough to keep it sensible IMO - David Gerard 16:23, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protoscience must be new, it must be an active field of research by real scientists, and it must be, as has been pointed out, adhering to the scientific method. A number of the topics listed here do not match these criteria. I'm going to have a go at fixing this up. -- Tim Starling 00:50, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

OK, here are the articles I removed, and the reasons I gave in my edit summaries:

-- Tim Starling 01:21, Aug 18, 2004 (UTC)

This is a big improvement. Some borderline cases remain -- for example, I wouldn't characterize string theory as a new "area" of scientific endeavor, but rather as a new hypothesis or theory within an established area. Still, I'm willing to hold off listing this category for deletion. Let's hope the True Believers in various pseudosciences don't make nuisances of themselves with trying to claim the "protoscience" label. JamesMLane 03:00, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Alchemy is certainly not new... Ardric47 07:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upon noticing three species of cryptids listed on the page (Almas, Emela-ntouka, Flying Bigfoot) I gave them the boot to their proper category of Cryptozoology. I also included Cryptozoology as a subcat. I believe this approach is cleaner than having these species listed separately under both categories. For a similar reason, I re-included Alternative medicine. I think it far better that proponents of Alt. med. list their myriad topics there, rather than directly here. Including Alternative medicine as a subcat, but not permitting individual *therapies on this page is a compromise approach: it serves to keep both protoscience supporters and alt. med. supporters happy, rather than wrangling over edits.Freederick 23:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I re-excluded alt. med. per discussion both here and there: not new, not speculative, not scientific and the category is controversial as per policy it should be excluded WP:CLS: "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category.". Peace. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 03:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Rename/merge category?

Why not rename this as "minority scientific views" or something like that, or merge with such an article? Criteria for inclusion seem vague and OR-ish. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 21:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the lead section at protoscience, and it's clearer, but also may be OR. Article needs more sources than just Kuhn, imo. thx, Jim Butler(talk) 22:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
List of minority-opinion scientific theories could supersede this category. Jim Butler(talk) 03:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Added a box at top of article along with existing box suggesting placing topics in Category:Pseudoscience. (Sorry if I did the box incorrectly in any way.) thx, Jim Butler(talk) 13:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/o/Category_talk%7EProtoscience_e7e4.html"