Talk:Scientific uncertainty

Redirect?
We already have an article on Open problems. This article seems to duplicate the ideas in this pre-existing article. I'm also dubious that an article on a general topic that uses a single example from a particular field should be categorised as an article dealing with that field. Applying that idea generally would mean that articles such as science would have fifty or so categories. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This looks like original research and an invented neologism to me. "Scientific uncertainty" is not a special concept that needs its own article, as well as I can see. Ed, there are no sources on "scientific uncertainty" in the article, just one example for the use of the word, and that in a pop-sci website. I don't even understand why you link to the second one... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think about the idea of redirecting to open problems, Stephen? At least that is a verifiable topic. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Kim has already redirected to uncertainty, which I think is a better solution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you all say that "scientific uncertainty" does not need its own article, then I'm cool with that. I'm going to go study the lit of open problems now. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good luck. One more comment: Ed, you wrote "It is only when the scientific uncertainty is removed that we get scientific consensus" in the original article. That is simply wrong. There can be a scientific consensus about the uncertainties in a given field. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, please add that to the uncertainty article. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)