Talk:Nescience
Add topic | This article was nominated for deletion on 22 April 2006. The result of the discussion was delete. |
First line needs editing.
[edit]The first line of this article reads, "Nescience is the obverse of science presumes a want of trustworthy knowledge that is necessary for one to flourish." Should perhaps instead read, "Nescience is the obverse of science, which presumes a want of trustworthy knowledge necessary to flourish." Won't edit it myself because I am not an expert on "nescience," but strongly suspect that this lead sentence is slightly garbled / unclear. 2A02:8070:A480:4920:5C3E:634A:64C6:6F71 (talk) 08:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Poorly written article in general
[edit]This article doesn't really explain what nescience is in relation to the definition. The first sentence of the article is some crude attempt to define it but just seems like gibberish, then it trails off into several vague examples of real world implications without a clear connection to the topic of discussion. Also, it isn't clear how the E M Lilien print is relevant to the article. 00090R (talk) 11:40, 9 October 2025 (UTC)