122
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 48:
Line 48: + + + + +
no edit summary
:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
:: Thanks for the generous offer. Taken the average quality of the articles here about natural sciences i would be more on the side of improving them (which is what I do when i see an easy to correct definitive mistake). Up to that time i will rely on textbooks and the original articles in the libraries. --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 10:26, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
== Rewrite ==
i rewrote the page, since lists should no serve as an excuse for not forming sentences, and because in the list multiple levels of hierarchy were mixed (e.g. physics and evolution where mentioned on the same level, although one is a science and the other is a theory). Last but not least the term 'fuzzy subject' is definitely a little bit 'fuzzy'. The still 'fuzzy' but at least generally understood 'soft sciences' may be preferred. Last but not least the definition of the term itself was also fuzzy and needed more explanation (it still needs in respect to special status of mathematics). --[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]]