Template talk:Philosophyscience

This could really use some work... ħuman 00:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is 'a priori' on there but 'a posterior' not when 'a posteriori' corresponds to Empiricism?--Centimeter_INCHES 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I added it. It seems kind of random that one should be in the template and one shouldn't. By the way, why is this template titled Empiricism? Why is Empiricism more important that Rationalism? Shouldn't it be Empiricism and Rationalism?--Centimeter_INCHES 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's about empiricism? ħuman 05:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters, it's only on five articles, and I don't think it should be on science at all. ^narchist 09:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we don't have a science/philosophy of science template! Seems awfully strange for a wiki which values science so much. A template focused just on philosophy of science could have empiricism, rationalism, naturalism, materialism, a prior, a posteriori, science, pseudoscience, woo, and who knows what else! Perhaps, in lieu of a science template, we should rename this template???--Centimeter_INCHES 16:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate the title, but, well, templates have weird titles sometimes. ħuman 10:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Make it the same as the other nav templates

Any reason not to change it? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 02:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

*cough* Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)