Philosophy of science was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 10, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that distinguishing science from non-science is an unsolved problem in the
philosophy of science, so an "
I know it when I see it" standard is sometimes used to recognize
pseudoscience? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Science. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Philosophy of science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Philosophy of science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 21:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph on philosophy of psychology seems out of place to me. It would appear to be a niche issue with adherents among a small contingent of psychotherapists, and is not warranted on the general philosophy of science page. It is difficult to follow and is not referenced.
Perhaps editors on this page prefer to have a long article with many niche components. But I thought I'd flag it and, depending on responses, relegate it to a more specialized page. Vrie0006 ( talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. I didn't look at the article's history but this article fails the B-class criteria #1 with "citation needed" tags from 2017 and 2018. There are unsourced sentences and paragraphs and added unsourced sentences after an inline citation. There are also "weasel-worded phrases from October 2017" and 2019. -- Otr500 ( talk) 07:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015. There looks to be quite a lot of uncited material in the article which large chunks just with no citations. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
the nature of philosophy of science 102.88.36.236 ( talk) 09:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Philosophy of science was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the "
Did you know?" column on
January 10, 2016. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that distinguishing science from non-science is an unsolved problem in the
philosophy of science, so an "
I know it when I see it" standard is sometimes used to recognize
pseudoscience? | |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
This
level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A summary of this article appears in Science. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Philosophy of science is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Philosophy of science until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America 1000 21:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
This paragraph on philosophy of psychology seems out of place to me. It would appear to be a niche issue with adherents among a small contingent of psychotherapists, and is not warranted on the general philosophy of science page. It is difficult to follow and is not referenced.
Perhaps editors on this page prefer to have a long article with many niche components. But I thought I'd flag it and, depending on responses, relegate it to a more specialized page. Vrie0006 ( talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Greetings. I didn't look at the article's history but this article fails the B-class criteria #1 with "citation needed" tags from 2017 and 2018. There are unsourced sentences and paragraphs and added unsourced sentences after an inline citation. There are also "weasel-worded phrases from October 2017" and 2019. -- Otr500 ( talk) 07:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA from 2015. There looks to be quite a lot of uncited material in the article which large chunks just with no citations. Onegreatjoke ( talk) 23:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
the nature of philosophy of science 102.88.36.236 ( talk) 09:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)