Talk:Consilience

message: The term from election theory should presumably be put on a separate page from the term in philosophy of science, with a disambiguation page if necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.2.142.91 (talk) 08:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Election Theory

message: To say that they are equivalents is less than useful. This entry needs to separate the two concepts, clarifying each in the process. --Wetman 07:16, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "...And in this way consilience is very similar to reductionism." the article tells us. This isn't true, and in this abbreviated formula it can't be very useful. --Wetman 05:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consilience, "Universology" and "[[reductionism]]"

message: The eight long quotations at the end should have their source(s) indicated please. Dirac66 22:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unattributed quotations

message: I removed the following mass of text from the main article (Consilience) because it's just too unbalancing to the rest of the article and, while it's a simulating reading, it needs more paraphrasing and introductory prose. Even if these eight paragraphs were (and possibly are) in the article about the book (Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge), I'm not sure they're entirely appropriate for Wikipedia. In that case, I'll put them in a "Quotations" section of the article about the book instead of this talk page and see what discussion follows. Xaxafrad 04:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of quotations from the book

message: It looks like a vanity section. It's got nothing to do with the topic apart from the title. Should it go?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consilience Journal - remove? 

message: "each branch of knowledge studies a subset of reality that depends on factors studied in other branches" does this apply to atomic physics as well?217.232.225.3 (talk) 08:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You could say that the observational side of atomic physics heavily depends on "lab-scale" physics being in good order, so in the final brew, from an evidentiary point of view they depend on each other. But of course from the theoretical or axiomatic side, you are completely right, the small implies the large, but doesn't need it to be logically complete on its own. That is the principle of reductionism. 89.217.22.3 (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  is there a root or is everything a branch? 

message: I've had a quick skim of Google and Google Scholar and can't find anything showing "consilience" as a jargon term in election counting, anywhere. Something like the concept, certainly, but nothing suggesting the word is a term in the field. Anyone else? This section needs citing or removal - David Gerard (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed for now. Feel free to restore if a decent reference to it as a jargon term can actually be found - David Gerard (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't find refs for the term "consilience" in elections 

message: I seem to recall that continental drift/plate tectonics was finally accepted by the scientific community due to consilience.  This might be a good example to add to the lead. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought it was because, of all the theories, it was the only one that they finally came up with a mechanism for (subduction). Which then checked out as pretty much correct in all sorts of ways - David Gerard (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead examples 

message: this can probably be used as a reference.  --David Tornheim (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  reliable sources 

message: The intro looks great, but is lacking sources. Particularly, does anyone know a good source for this statement:
Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.
If you could add sources, I would be very grateful.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dovmiester (talk • contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone please provide sources for this? 

message: Consilience is mostly used to refer to approaches to interdisciplinary research. The page now refers to this level but also and very often to much more common experimental approaches within the same discipline (e.g., measures of independent variables, measurement of different physical dimensions of the same physical phenomenon). The definition needs a review IMHO. Tytire (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the page sound?