Talk:Natural scientific research in Canada

Where to start!

This is a very detailed article but.. it's too long.. plus there are various MOS problems with the content. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

psychology a natural science?

It may be the most experimental of the social sciences, but psychology is not a natural science. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That is true. I am tempted to remove all the sections concerning psychology (especially as it specifically states that he social sciences are not being treated in the introduction), but I fear it is too drastic a change. Besides, it's been five years, and nobody else has done it. Me, Myself & I (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you choose to remove Psychology on grounds that it is not a natural science, then for the sake of consistency you must remove mathematics, which is first and foremost a formal science. However, it is my opinion that the article should be renamed Scientific Research in Canada, and should discuss any field of scientific research, be it natural, social or formal. There are two main reasons why this change should be adopted:

1. There are no article on the social or formal sciences in Canada.

2. This article is redirected from Scientific Research in Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savarez~enwiki (talk • contribs) 13:48, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Good points. An editor has recently removed the information on mathematics, so I wonder if we should we make a separate formal/social science article, or move this article and readd the content. One concern is that the article is uncomfortably long in its current state, but it can be slimmed down considerably by cutting out the fluff. Me, Myself & I (☮) (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples and nature (14,000 BC – AD 1600)

The use of the word science to describe Aboriginal knowledge may be anachronistic, and this section has no place on this article unless there are sources to corroborate the claims it makes. This section is more of an opinion piece than anything pertinent in the context of Wikipedia. I am taking the liberty of removing this section, and it is my hope that it will not be added until adequate sources are cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.149.53 (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Should this Article even exist?

This type of article is the only one of it's kind for any country on Wikipedia. The article itself discussing "Natural Scientific Research in Canada" is a poor choice relative to either a general "Scientific Research in Canada" article with a section on the history of scientific research in Canada, or a "History of Scientific Research in Canada". As it stands the article is appallingly dense, it mentions "natural sciences" in the title of the article then goes onto to incorrectly define it by every standard, including the definition given by the Natural Science page itself. The first non-intro paragraph is literally a listing of early European travellers who made it to some part of what would be Canada in +300 years, no article on Canadian natural scientific research should be discussing things that occurred 50 years prior to the birth of Francis Bacon or Galileo Galilei.

Personally I would argue the correct choice is to rename the page to it's redirect in Scientific Research in Canada. There are useful parts of this article that could fill in multiple sections of the history of scientific research in Canada, however as it stands this article needs an entire rewrite from the ground up. SlowBrainEdits (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2021 (UTC)