Talk:Science stopper

I'm not sure the claim that string theory is preventing significant work extending them forward (whatever that means) is accurate. String theory neither prevents attempts to confirm or further develop the theory, nor prevents research and theory-development along other lines of thinking from taking place. It might take away time, mone and energy that someone feels would be better spent on another line of research, but it by no means in the category of ID. I'd suggest removing that and coming up with a better example.  Rational Ed welcome to the bizarro world 13:23, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * The whole concept seems counter-intuitive to me. I can't imagine why any one hypothesis wold stop new developments in a given field. Certainly, none of the examples mentioned have had that result - ID has been formulated as a "hypothesis", yet biologists seem perfectly happy to ignore it. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 13:55, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I see no need for this article, it adds nothing except some confusion. It looks more like it was built as a series of "debating" entries, have to check the fossil record... PS, consider this a nomination for deletion. It has only two incoming links, both from tmtoulouse joynts that have plenty of outlinks and could easily be reworded to make it "go away". human  14:11, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Rerereading... It seems that the opening paragraph, perhaps rewritten, coudl be useful. The rest is irrelevant to the concept being discussed. human  14:13, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That's much better, although there's still a dissonance somewhere - it's not much of a science stopper if it doesn't stop any actual science. Maybe it would be better referred to as a "dead hypothesis" or a "scientific dead-end" or something similar? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 15:16, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm with you AK - let's think of a good name. This article was created by Trent, because he used the phrase "science stopper" in a couple of articles, and wrote the stub that became this piece.  I like the "scientific dead end", but that could refer to legitimate research that proves its hypothesis wrong... wait, no, even failed hypotheses build our knowledge.  yes, I vote for "scientific dead end" - it can be dropped right into both the links to here without even changing the grammar. human  15:23, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I vote for deletion. The term is a misnomer and not relevant to science inthe least.  Rational Ed welcome to the bizarro world 15:45, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That's two. Is there any support for trying to breathe life back into this equus morte (please forgive my accente Latincaise!)? human  15:56, 19 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Are we any closer to a decision on this? human  19:42, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Maybe we could take what's left here and put it into the article on Hypothesis? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:43, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm fine with that. I'm going to kill the two in-links now, if you want to move the mrilliant prose outta here and zam the article. human  20:15, 20 March 2008 (EDT)