23
edits
Changes
→Response
::I have tried to make small edits with a clear edit comment on each, to make discussion easier. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
::I have tried to make small edits with a clear edit comment on each, to make discussion easier. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 19:58, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole problem with this article is that it takes something that is already well defined and gives a completely different definition. The content here may or may not be true, but this is not "big science". I suggest rather than giving personal opinions about SCIENCE we start bringing academic references (EB) to the discussion. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
:::The whole problem with this article is that it takes something that is already well defined and gives a completely different definition. The content here may or may not be true, but this is not "big science". I suggest rather than giving personal opinions about SCIENCE we start bringing academic references (EB) to the discussion. [[User:HenryS|HenryS]] 20:33, 19 September 2008 (EDT)
::::Academic references? HenryS, using professors and their collegiate cronies to verify science is like trying to drown a fire in gas. The article is fine the way it is going, but some of the information about it's aims should be both expanded and specified. [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:55, 1 October 2008 (EDT)