Talk:Rhetoric of science

Lead
As per WP:LEAD the lead needs to summarise the text of the article, this edit diff removed the text summarising the section summarising the "History" section. If anything this section needs to be a larger part of the lead. Moreover ti produced a single-sentence paragraph, which is poor style. What was the reason for this? Tim Vickers (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * diff, yes, much better. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot that there are hundreds of people watching every article. It's not like the old days (2002) when a contributor could make an edit and actually gaze at the page for a while. I really have to get into the habit of using Preview, eh? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of the article reads like an undergraduate essay. It's referencing a bunch of different books, without explaining what they are about in a useful way. The paragraph that mentions Aristotle is the one I'm talking about.

142.151.170.136 (talk) 03:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This still seems to be the vibe i got from this entry. 195.171.176.87 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

SIG
The rhetoric of science was the subject of a special interest group for various academics about a decade ago. The domain "incommensurability.com" was used to coordinate the efforts of those individuals at that time. Since then the subject has swelled because science is at the frontier in information warfare, a growing issue in the public sphere. The web domain no longer serves the SIG but the wayback machine provides a view of the scholars work:
 * Incommensurability recovered

The current article reflects the field as it appeared then. Improvements to the article may draw on the SIG site as well as more recent references. — Rgdboer (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)