5,175
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 23:
Line 23: + + +
→Needed?
:::: Aziraphale is correct in that we are not disputing the truth of the content. In fact I totally agree with it, and not just because I know one of the authors of the quote!
:::: Aziraphale is correct in that we are not disputing the truth of the content. In fact I totally agree with it, and not just because I know one of the authors of the quote!
:::: Ed, you point out that ' "science" is not the same as "physical science" '. That comment is irrelevant, as we no longer have an article titled "physical science"! It was ''you'' who renamed "science" to "physical science", which was too restrictive, so it was renamed "natural science" so that the life sciences would be included. The question is, do we need "modern science" as well? For that matter, do we really need "natural science"? Why not just put it all (back) under "science"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
:::: Ed, you point out that ' "science" is not the same as "physical science" '. That comment is irrelevant, as we no longer have an article titled "physical science"! It was ''you'' who renamed "science" to "physical science", which was too restrictive, so it was renamed "natural science" so that the life sciences would be included. The question is, do we need "modern science" as well? For that matter, do we really need "natural science"? Why not just put it all (back) under "science"? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:04, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
== Moving On ==
Philip, do you have the ability to merge articles here? It's clear (to me) from Ed's edit history that he simply considers this matter "settled." So do I, for that matter, but probably not in the same way. [[User:Aziraphale|Aziraphale]] 15:27, 24 March 2008 (EDT)