Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of science/philosopher of science

More nonsense from Ghitis. Pyrop 22:29, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: Those were English words in there, but the sentences made no sense whatever. Nonsense from a smith of such. Geogre 00:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wish someone had taken it upon themselves to try and mentor this mis-informed new user.  I've written to him explaining that many of his pages are inappropriate.  -- Netoholic @ 01:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike the overuse of patent nonsense, I think this might qualify under the second bullet. All the sentences are well structured (nouns, verbs, etc) but I have no idea what the author is trying to say.  Delete. Rossami 03:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article subpage is contrary to policy, no useful content. But note that the author does have many good edits too, as well as some other bad ones. Andrewa 04:02, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Odd.  SWAdair | Talk  07:28, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Note that "nonsense" has the specific meaning of "lacking intelligible meaning or self-consistency". It does not mean "hard to grasp", "wrong", or "verbose". This article is not nonsense. However it is also not encyclopaedic, nor even particularly meaningful. &#8212;Rory &#9786; 17:02, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Gibberish, subpage.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Some of you almost comprehended my lines; most did not. I believe that my intention was to state that the article ought to include the role of a philosopher of science nowadays. Names could be included, with their specific contributions. I would add that some of you feel intellectually superior and enjoy evincing that feeling by attempting to diminish the "victim." I suggest you read On Justice. I am not especially concerned about my contribution being deleted. -- Ghitis 17:18, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * All I wrote is that a philosopher of science does not write nowadays on P. of S. itself but on the application of P. of S. to understand the import of a scientific discovery. I used clear language for such purpose.
 * As I understand, you're saying that there's little to contribute directly to science anymore from philosophers, so now philosophers of science try to ask "what does it mean on a deeper level" when scientific discoveries are made, and try to find interesting links between specific discoveries that advance a field, and other fields that might benefit from that advance. In either case Ghitis, you didn't make things very clear, and as I understand it, this is not what philosophers of science actually do. Philosophers of Science focus on the more abstract question "How can we/What does it mean to know things scientifically?", and related questions. Philosophy of Science is not about specific discoveries at all, but about the process and significance of science and its community. In any case, while your effort is appreciated, your contribution is both hard to read and incorrect. I believe you still have the potential to contribute to Wikipedia, so don't give up. Delete --Improv 19:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur with your understanding. The article poorly conveys its ideas, but if I understand them correctly, it's also simply wrong. Philosophers of science tend to study epistimology and the criteria for rational application and so forth. They tend not to "delve" into particular modern discoveries. The title is also unusable. Delete. CHL 05:50, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * For someone who deals with philosophers of science occasionally, I'll admit that it's somewhat funny. But encyclopedic it ain't. Delete. --Fastfission 04:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Improv, for your appreciation. I agree with all that what I wrote ought to be deleted, because it truly does not agree with the purpose of Wikipedia. Not only that, but truly it does not agree with the accepted definition of Philosophy of Science. I realize now that I actually was moved by what I believed (and still believe) should be the role of a philosopher of science; in fact I consider myself to be one, and I am moved by a deep need of explaining Nature. Perhaps what made me write the "contribution" being judged was knowing that the outstanding P. of S. Edward O. Wilson had written on Consilience (which I have not read), and thus I associated the Philosophy of S. not so much with what it is but with what I feel it should be nowadays. I myself have written articles with that point of view in mind. One of my contributions has been Now and Instant, which has been rejected from Wikipedia. I understand why, yet I truly believe is an important contribution. I enjoy much perusing Wikipedia, and also appreciate all those who devote time to it. I'll cease attempting to make contributions that are not within its rules, with no further ado. Ghitis 09:42, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)