Talk:Empirical limits in science

"God" has no place on this page
It would be better - more comprehensive and clear to say "ideas not yet developed into a rational construct".

Citations needed
Several uncited claims were in the article but had been tagged since 2008. Please find good citations if you want to add in these claims as contributions to the encyclopedia. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 12:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

imponderables
see, e.g., "Which came first, chicken or egg  ?"

perhaps a set of imponderables can be used to expand this article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk  &#124; contribs) 14:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

recent edits
Airstarfish (talk) 04:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

About the lead section
The second last sentence and the dot points in the lead are just the same information repeated without a citation. It may be better to just keep the second last sentence since it has a citation and is more succinct. Airstarfish (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I removed the quote from Rudolf Eucken as it did not fit the lead of this article. It could perhaps be used elsewhere in the article with later edits Airstarfish (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Redirect
I looked through this article and cannot see anything worth keeping. Our article on empiricism can use some expansion, I would wager, but this should be done over there and not here. To start, the article did not even define what was meant by a "limit" and, because of that, never really established what the scope of the article was supposed to be. There are physiological limits to the senses, there are epistemological limits to what knowledge can be gained empirically, and there are even political arguments as to what empirical evidence is good for in the context of persuading others or making claims about questions of moral or legal judgements. None of these points are adequately identified in the lede and then the rest of the article goes on to give a pretty half-assed description of how sensory perception works without really engaging in the literature that argues that our division into five senses is arbitrary and cultural, for example. Finally, the article went on about certain advances in science that are made through improved observations and then questions about language. Yuck. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a place to write original essays like this. It is a place to summarize the best available sources in context.

Some of the text might be usable on other articles, but as a standalone, this one just wasn't worth keeping. I think preserving the history is fine in case someone wants to use some of this material elsewhere.

jps (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)