I know there can sometimes be doubt where to start a topic, e.g. because a topic may not be purely scientific or medical. But, is my perception of "science" and "medical" wrong or what?
"Medical", that's everything that has to do with prevention, diagnosis, treatment of illness, etc. right? And medical publications like those you can find in PubMed are science, right? I thought there need not be any doubt about that. Of course it is also medical, but I created the "science"-forum to make a distinction between scientific and non-scientific.
Hence, the forum description of "Medical":
Note: of course this doesn't mean that one can't reply e.g. with a PubMed abstract to a thread started in "Medical". It is the content of the starting post and the intention of its poster that matters.Medical topics related to Lyme disease that do not fit in the section "Science", with information about the diagnosis, treatment, etc.
And I thought the description of the "science"-forum was also clear:
So, should there be any doubt that PubMed abstracts (and/or the full-text or quotes from the full-text), with subjects related to Lyme disease (Borrelia and other TBI) belong in "science"?Scientific topics related to Lyme disease, like (peer-reviewed) scientific medical publications and articles supported by such publications.
I created "general" for non-science and non-medical topics, or it least where science/medicine is not the main topic, like the topic "The Dr. Jones Defense Fund". But I often see what in my perception are purely medical topics started in "general", and also topics that seem to fit perfectly in "science".
Members of LNE, what do you think about all this?
BTW: although I think the number of forum categories should be as low as possible, I am thinking about creating a new forum for discussing people, organizations, websites, books, etc. in Lymeland, because this is such a major activity on LNE. Then I can put all those existing topics about Tincup, Scott F., lymenet.org, etc. also there. What do you think about THAT?