Talk:What Is This Thing Called Science?

Philosophy: Literature / Science Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Philosophy of science

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal What Is This Thing Called Science? is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Nice Summary Available[edit]

A nice outline and summary of Chalmers is available online: What is This Thing Called Science. I could not find any author listed, or whether or not there is a copyright issues with just copying the outline. Someone with more time and knowledge of the book could provide a service by putting a suitably abbreviated version of the outline into the very brief and unsatisfactory current article. Asaduzaman (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source[edit]

Books on Demand and self-publishing books generally are not considered a WP:reliable source. But the author is cited in other WP articles, while the volume has an OCLC master code added by a certain number of university libraries.

Hence, it seems to be an authoritative source. Furthermore, it gives two points of weakness, just to avoid to have online an advertising WP article. The source has been published in 2011 with concerns to a reference work whose first edition dates back to 1975. So, the judgement can be got as definitive and with a very low likelihood to be overcome by new reviewed editions. Kind regards, Philosopher81sp (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]