Talk:Unity of science

no way

No way, Jose! The two concepts are RADICALLY different. ...

I do not know who wrote the above sentence, but could you clarify a bit? What is so radical about the dirence between the Unity of Science idea and the Unified Science idea of the Vienna circle people? Mabelis 13:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

against combining the two

The Unified Science page seems more like a disambiguation page; if Unity of science were going to be re-labeled "unified science", the page would need to be under a slightly different name – like Unified Science (movement) or (concept) or (philosophy) or maybe just unified science in lowercase.

Either way, the Unified Science page should probably include unity of science (whatever it ends up being called) in its list of possible meanings. --Woozle 19:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC) (Addendum: I'd like to see more about the arguments against unified science, as it was my understanding that all the branches of science must be mutually consistant, or at least not contradictory, in order to be called science. Am I missing the point?)

Has it been shown that all the branches of science are at least non-contradictory? Entries like Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics seem to suggest that some branches of science are not, in themselves, internally consistent. This seems to suggest that a task of assessing, say, whether quantum mechanics is mutually consistent with the branches of science that deal with physiological or ecological metabolism, would be challenging. Sholto Maud 11:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (Addendum: so it seems that science is not "unified" at the moment, and that unification is an on-going, emergent property of scientific inquiry.)

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)