Category talk:Science in society

Untitled

Isn't science in society really the larger category than "science and culture"? i.e., the cat structure should be Category:Science in society and the subcat Category:Science and culture. --lquilter 20:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily. "Culture" in the anthropological sense is broader than "society"; culture in the artistic sense would be a subcat. For a long time the two categories "Culture" and "Society" were subcats of each other, reflecting this ambiguity. In my view, it got resolved the wrong way (Culture is a subcat of Society now). In the case of these science categories, both terms are so vague that I don't see how it matters. On the other hand, I say rearrange things if you feel strongly about it.--ragesoss 00:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about it! I get the anthropology meaning. Should we be consistent with the larger wikipedia decision (Society > Culture)? Or are there good reasons to make science the other way? ... The issue that brought me to this was categorizing Biological warfare and Chemical warfare. --lquilter 03:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the "science and culture" category is filled with things that do not involve the expansive anthropology definition, so I'd say your original suggestion makes the most sense.--ragesoss 14:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Or (and maybe this is too radical) they are more or less the same and should be merged here? --lquilter 15:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Science and the public

I've created this Template:Science and the public, to be reused as appropriate. Fgnievinski (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)