Category talk:Science in society

Untitled
Isn't science in society really the larger category than "science and culture"? i.e., the cat structure should be Category:Science in society and the subcat Category:Science and culture. --lquilter 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. "Culture" in the anthropological sense is broader than "society"; culture in the artistic sense would be a subcat.  For a long time the two categories "Culture" and "Society" were subcats of each other, reflecting this ambiguity.  In my view, it got resolved the wrong way (Culture is a subcat of Society now).  In the case of these science categories, both terms are so vague that I don't see how it matters.  On the other hand, I say rearrange things if you feel strongly about it.--ragesoss 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly about it! I get the anthropology meaning. Should we be consistent with the larger wikipedia decision (Society > Culture)?  Or are there good reasons to make science the other way?  ... The issue that brought me to this was categorizing Biological warfare and Chemical warfare. --lquilter 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like the "science and culture" category is filled with things that do not involve the expansive anthropology definition, so I'd say your original suggestion makes the most sense.--ragesoss 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Or (and maybe this is too radical) they are more or less the same and should be merged here? --lquilter 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Science and the public
I've created this Template:Science and the public, to be reused as appropriate. Fgnievinski (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)