Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific attitude


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was delete. --Core des at 03:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Scientific attitude
This is not an encyclopaedia article, it is an essay or opinion piece about what the "scientific attitude" is or should be. Everything it says may well be correct, but it is still not an article. Charles 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Essay/OR --NMChico24 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a mess. Caknuck 01:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsalvageable opinion piece. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 02:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per NMChico24. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Bookgrrl 02:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Who is Bloom? This may be very pertinent to the question of whether this article is worth keeping in some form. Is the Bloom referenced here notable as a social theorist or the like? --Christofurio 03:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a reference to Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. It's not directly related to scientific method or attitude, and referring to it is an obvious bit of original research (synthesis) on the part of the article author. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 04:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.97.253 (talk • contribs)
 * Just FYI: this isn't a vote, this is a discussion. Saying "delete" without a reason or at least a reference to someone else's reason is the same thing as saying nothing and usually gets ignored when the final decision is made. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 04:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Saxifrage. BrownHornet21 04:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with the above Timbatron 05:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and all you guys †he Bread  05:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per NMChico24, this reads like an Essay, and without references i am compelled to beleive this is original research Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand/ edit So make it an article? 8 million google hits, including 1 hit for a book with that exact title. Looks like a real topic to me. Kim Bruning 10:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (did anyone else type the words into google before stating their opinion?)
 * Also 3350 hits for "scientific attitude" in book titles on amazon. A quick runthrough shows some works that are too specific (such as "scientific attitude towards x", "development of scientific attitude wrt Y"), but others seem rather useful ("scientific attitude in the xxth century", "development of scientific attitude over time"). Kim Bruning 10:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Another 2169 hits while searching primary and secondary literature on pubmed. A quick skim through the hits shows several promising titles. Kim Bruning 10:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a work in progress. When you see an article like this, the correct procedure is to expand it. If you delete all pages that aren't perfect yet, the wiki doesn't get a chance to do its job. Kim Bruning 10:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Begging pardon, but as someone who's actually studying philosophy of science academically right now, the term "scientific attitude" is so vague as to be hopeless. Much better minds than we have tried to define what makes up science, and there is no agreement yet on even whether it is an attitude (as opposed to a societal value system, logical system, or something else), let alone what such an "attitude" might be. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 15:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That would explain why there are so many opinions about the subject (as per google, amazon, pubmed above) . Quite worthy of an NPOV article explaining the different views! :-) Thank you for pointing out that this is a notable subject in the philosophy of science. Kim Bruning 19:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'm saying the opposite if you'd listen. I'm technically pointing out that the title itself (and hence, the subject) is question-begging as far as academia is concerned. There is so little consensus out there that there isn't even agreement on what is being discussed, let alone the details of it. Every philosopher of science has their own take on how science is done and why, and has their own set of things that they focus on. While concepts like Value theory, Rationality, and Paradigm shift have gotten a lot of attention, there are few treatments on "scientific attitude" out there. In my own search of the literature I get 26 hits, of which (judging by the titles and abstracts) all but one merely use the term without elaboration. (I'm not sure what a search of a biomedical journal repository such as PubMed is meant to demonstrate about a socio-psycho-philosophical concept.) Most of them use the term in mutually-incompatible senses. Undoubtably something could be written, but this is an areas of inquiry that has yet to stabilise in the real world and I do doubt that we humble Wikipedia editors could document something that the real world hasn't even begun to settle on without resorting to original research. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Philosphers of science can debate forever, in the mean time, there's science to be done on the ground. People are showing *some* attitude or other. Are you sure there's no material on that topic? Google and amazon (and even a biomedical search) show hits.
 * I just did searches in some locations I use regularly. Each gave quite a number of hits. I think scientific attitude has probably been discussed to death for centuries. I'd be quite surprised if there was no literature on the subject. Once again, if people are discussing the topic, and the subject is unstable, you can report which main ideas have formed over time.
 * You yourself state that there is material on the subject, but that people are still all confused. Then that's what we report. And mutually incompatible senses you say? That's where NPOV can really shine! :-)
 * Kim Bruning 00:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm with you until you say "you yourself...". Yes, there may be material. I doubt it, and for the reasons I state. People are free to go do that research and create a new article at this title. Where you lose me and my patience is when you attribute words to me I haven't written. I have specifically said that, to my knowledge, there is not literature on the subject. What I have said is that there is literature about something that some people could label "scientific attitude" if they were to engage in original research, but that such a term is not in currency that I am aware of. I said that there is debate about science in general and what it means to do it, so much so that there is no agreement (not "disagreement") on the terms used. Simply put, to my knowledge what constitutes the "scientific attitude" is not under debate because the debaters on the topic of science are busy with other things and haven't begun considering the colloquial term in any academic way. Again, I may be wrong, but using a mistake about what I'm actually saying (or at least trying to say) in your persuasion is not going to convince me of that. &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on misunderstanding, my apologies. But if what you say is true, how does one account for so many hits, sometimes for the literal phrase? Kim Bruning 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two ways to account for it: (1) the term has a lot of common currency but isn't treated on as a topic of discussion (i.e., it's just a common term and not a solidified concept), or (2) that I'm wrong, and there is treatment of the topic in a focused way with common premises. I believe (1) is the case, but I recognise that the reality may be between the two. (That being wrong isn't a fatally-bad thing is one of the joys of consensus decisions.) &mdash; Saxifrage ✎ 21:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete as a personal essay. J I P  | Talk 15:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Deserves an article, genuine academic sources can be found. Dave 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no sources, provided, and the article is an essay. -- Whpq 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is POV, no sources. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSmack (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as an unverified essay. If it does deserve an article, it deserves better than to be written in this manner. -- Gray  Porpoise Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae 00:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - POV essay meet WP:SOAP. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Whoever wants to start an article on it might as well start from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 06:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.