Talk:Kuhn vs. Popper

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

Science Low‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Subject matter

I think that the title of this article needs to be changed to something more specific, perhaps to the title of the book the article purports to describe?

It may be more useful to frame the debate. This is keeping with the mission and purpose of Wikipedia: To describe "what is" and "what happened". This is true for the book as well; any critique of the book would necessarily include what contemporaries thought of it.

Per the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability_(books), it is recommended that this article be merged into that already established for the author Steve_Fuller_(sociologist). Alternatively, an article might be expanded to describe this debate, should it be deemed significant, and to simply disambiguate the debate from any works derived from or created in reference to it. (Miimno (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Unless the article includes the full range of views on the book and how it connects up with Fuller's previous work on Kuhn (which is currently not represented in his main article), it should be eliminated. It reads like it was put here by one of his critics, perhaps Rupert Read, whose review in an academic journal seems to dominate the discussion -- more than the book itself, whose contents are never discussed! --Credenza deluxe (talk) 07:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The UK "popular science" site is misquoted, the article does not say that the book is meaningless babble, but that it becomes "meaningless babble" when read too fast. --Rebach (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]