One of the oldest questions of spatial planning is about the profession itself. Because of the direct fields of application on the urban or regional scale, or on sectorial fields like transport or environmental planning, scholars in planning sciences always quarreled with themselves whether their approaches can be seen as discipline itself. Regardless of the different answers and outcomes of this question, it becomes clear that the debate triggers more than just the acceptance as a discipline. One might think that the scientific nature of spatial planning and thus the raison d’être of planning sciences are under general suspicion. This requires a deeper discussion about the definition of sciences and the demarcation problem as discussed in classical (Popper, Kuhn) and more contemporary approaches (Hoyningen-Huene, Park) in the philosophy of science, and what this means for the discussion about spatial planning as a science as well as a discipline. Therefore, various conclusions to regard planning sciences not as one discipline but as multiple disciplines are possible. In this sense, let us dig deep toward the bottom line of the debate.

中文翻译：

---

规划为科学学科？深入探讨辩论的底线

空间规划最古老的问题之一是有关专业本身的问题。由于直接应用领域在城市或地区范围内，或者在运输或环境规划等部门领域，规划科学领域的学者们总是在争吵自己是否将其方法视为学科本身。不管这个问题的答案和结果如何不同，很明显，辩论不仅触发了对一门学科的接受。有人可能会认为，空间规划的科学性质以及规划科学的存在根基受到普遍的怀疑。这需要对科学的定义和古典问题（Popper，Kuhn）中讨论的分界问题以及更现代的方法（Hoyningen-Huene，公园”），这对于讨论空间规划既是一门科学又是一门学科意味着什么。因此，将规划科学视为一门学科而不是一门学科的各种结论都是可能的。从这个意义上讲，让我们深入探讨辩论的底线。