This category is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
This category falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
This category is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
This category is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the category attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Based on arbitration and
clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you think this is a reliable source. The author of that site is a philosopher, not a scientist. Are any of the sources he uses for that web pages reliable sources indicating that the Hollow Earth theory is pseudoscience? Martin Gardner, whose text i love, isn't a scientist, he's a mathematician and author. Could you explain your logic? Also, is this questionable science? Is it just an alternative theoretical formulation? If either of these two we should not, by W:PSCI, label it pseudoscience. How does a thing qualify as 'obvious pseudoscience'? What demosntrates this obviousness? Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=small}
