Talk:Baconian method

message: I suggest we merge this article with Novum Organum. It seems like this article will be incomplete without a full discussion of the contents of the Novum Organum, and if that is the case, it might just as well be the Novum Organum article. --Chris 00:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice no one has answered. For my own part I find it difficult to have a strong opinion. This proposal makes sense if we look at the current state of both articles, but in the longer term of course one is about a well-known particular book, and one is about a method which discussed in more than one book. So I think on reflection it is better to aim to improve both articles by expanding them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to go ahead and merge these. Need something to do today and the page just popped up on the cleanup page for the skepticism project. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: As done as I can be for the day. Hope this sparks other editors to help me polish it off a lot better. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, looking at the previous discussion, do not go ahead with any such merge until we have some consensus and a rationale.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Why was there a new tag stating merge needed? Those don't just appear. It makes a great deal of sense to merge them since it's literally the same topic. Also, in step for of the merger page it clearly states that if there are no objections within 30 days it may be performed. Since the discussion was brought up with no one other than the proposer and you as an assent chiming in how is this a problem? Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Novum Organum#Merge with Baconian method and Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

text: I strongly contend that the articles are not different enough to have two of them. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but see the original concern I posted years ago about that rationale.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I want to get an RfC tag on a new thread or this one to try and get some consensus. Which categorization tag do you think would be appropriate? I'm leaning toward sci but it's kind of history and kind of philosophy as well. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them I guess, but of course anyone coming to an RFC will want to see a definition of the rationales being proposed. So you still need to consider whether it is enough to say that the existing articles overlap significantly at a specific moment. Also, if that is accepted, what rationales do we have concerning which should be the destination article? Above, I've explained why I think that Novum Organum needs an article, but I am not 100% certain about Baconian Method.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. At some point I will put up a new discussion here with a rationale and tag it. I'll also convert it to a merge of this article into Novum Organum. That does appear to be the more noteworthy and more precisely defined of the two topics. As such it'll clearly be a differently organized and written article then my previous attempt at a merge. Although I did it as Novum into Baconian because that was how the header tag states the proposal. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 12:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Novum Organum

message: I have studied science my whole life (i.e. I am a scientist). This is the first time I heard of von Humboldt or whatever. Are there more than 3 references for this claim? 101.110.53.90 (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the edit that introduced Humboldtian science since a couple of people have questioned it and it has been reverted once before and reintroduced without any discussion. For the user who is eager to see a mention of Humboldtian science I suggest arguing for its relevance here. -- ChrisSteinbach (talk) 11:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Alexander von Humboldt was certainly very notable and influential concerning how natural science can be seen and practiced. Whether he developed a Humboldtian science or not I'll leave to whatever sourcing can be found, but it would ridiculous to argue that he was not notable or influential.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  IS HUMBOLDTIAN SCIENCE A FRINGE IDEA? 

message: This sentence (below) appears under the heading Baconian Method and is either a mistake or it requires elaboration or clarification, thank you.MH
'able to reveal the injustice of effective procedures'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.126.173.27 (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ' able to reveal the injustice of effective procedures '