User talk:Ed Poor/Scientific debate

If scientific debate is redirected to scientific consensus, is this a sly way of saying that scientists never debate anything? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I notice someone did make that redirect. I hope this is not a WP:POINTy answer to my question. I don't see how scientific consensus is the same topic as scientific debate. Is there a WP:RS who says that debate always leads to consensus? --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * They are closely related topics, as the reason for scientific debate is to reach a scientific consensus. Once such a consensus is reached, the debate dies down (unless and) until new information comes along to add fuel to it. Incidentally, the redirect was made over a year ago. As the article stands, there is little reason not to return to that redirect. HrafnTalkStalk 22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ? ? ? How could I have missed that? (It was 2007.) I need to take a break, until my vision improves. Thanks for pointing this out to me, Hrafn. --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The article currently simply states a few obvious points (without citation) and gives a single example. This really isn't the basis for an encyclopedic article. At minimum, you need some discussion from the philosophy of science on the nature of scientific debate. Lacking such, it really serves no purpose. HrafnTalkStalk 23:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)