Talk:List of superseded scientific theories/Archive 1

Archive 1

Relativity Measurable at Speed of Airplane

The effects of relativity were measured on a Boeing 747 going well below the speed of light. In addition, GPS literally depends on relativistic measurements to function. Even at 26,000 mph the effect is so large that it actually affects navigation calculations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.42.65 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Eugenics?

Wouldn't eugenics be outdated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidfarel (talk • contribs) 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While we know that the environment and experience can play a large or larger role than genetics themselves, there are still traits which can be helpful or harmful, and many of these are based almost exclusively in genetics. It's not inconceivable that eugenics will play a larger role in society in a few years or so... --Dagonius VI (talk) 01:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Paleontology

There's PILES of room for Dinosaur theories (braciosaurus living underwater, pterosaurs being aquatic, and the second stegosaur brain come to mind), as well as the Aquatic Ape theory now that I think of it. Just a thought, Mr. Tachyon.

wait, there's no 2nd stegosaur brain?? :( --dan 04:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Newtonian mechanics really "obsolete"?

Is Newtonian mechanics really "obsolete"? The overwhelming majority of working engineers and applied scientists still rely on it to solve problems, and you know what?...it still meets their needs, most of the time. It's true classical physics has been replaced by other sciences, but it's still used in the real world, so I find it hard to hear it called "obsolete". Revolver 03:02, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quite so. It fails under extreme conditions (or, more broadly, it succeeds under certain limited conditions that we happen to function in nearly 100% of the time), but it's commonly accepted in science and is not falsified within its own sphere. Only philosophically can it strictly be called obsolete. This make it an odd case, and might deserve a brief bit of text to this effect.

Obsolete is used in the sense of "outdated" and outdated scientifically, not obsolete in a practical useful sense. this is also stated in the article: "In some cases, the theory has been completely discarded. In other cases, the theory is still useful because it provides a description that is "good enough" for a particular situation, and is more easily used than the complete theory (often because the complete theory is too mathematically complex to be usable.)". However, perhaps a (but still useful) disclaimer on newtonian mechanics could be valid to avoid confusion (someone put one in but it was deleted). Pengo 12:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

BTW what exactly is the intent of this page? (I mean, besides flame bait, intentional or otherwise, for the holders of discredited or plain stupid theories.) Is it effectively a List page? Is it envisioned as having discursive text on obsolete theories? Dandrake 04:49, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is really a list page, and the "discursive text" for each theory is expected to be in their own articles. (original title of the page was "List of obsolete scientific theories").

Hopefully there will be minimal flame-age as theories that were never widely held in the first place are already to be excluded.

The point is to itemise theories which "were once commonly accepted but (for whatever reason) are no longer considered the most complete description of reality; or falsifiable theories which have been shown to be false." Hope this all clarifies things. Pengo 12:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that one ought to distinguish between two kinds of obsolete theories:

• Highly successful theories that turn out to be special cases of other theories, like classical physics
• Weakly-supported speculations that become completely rejected, like plum-pudding atomic structure

Cases like phlogiston are in-between cases.

As to sources, I've found Asimov - The Relativity of Wrong. He described in it the difference between those two kinds of obsolescence. Lpetrich (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

No theory is obsolete

An item of scientific knowledge has a domain of applicability; for example, Newton's laws, in their classical form, are used everyday by engineers to design quite practical devices like cars. The scientific method teaches that a theory can be verifiable, or falsifiable, or self-contradictory, or ..., but the temporal tag obsolete is not quite in that spirit. 169.207.90.148 07:46, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

a theory that is falsifiable can be shown to be false. if it is shown to be false it is discarded, and therefore "obsolete". self-contradictory theories would fall into this category also. the term "obsolete" means in classical, scientific sense. not in a practical sense. Pengo 12:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Neo-Lamarckism is said to be obsolete. Read Soma-to-germline feedback to see that there is still life in it and, the Weismann Barrier is also challenged.. GerardM 12:19, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What I said, above. Dandrake 22:51, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Ever heard about fundamentalism in science? Where is the open mind? And why call it flamebait? That is not my intention. GerardM 23:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the term "obsolete" and page title

Seems to be some confusion about what is meant by "obsolete". Suggestions for a better term welcomed. Please see the blurb at the start of the article for what it's (meant to) mean. i'll start a brainstorm below: Pengo 12:09, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Brainstorm for new titles:

• scientifically obsolete theories (kinda odd)
• no longer widely believed theories (too awkward)
• falsified theories (too narrow and provocative)
• add more

• Incomplete scientific theories - This allows the inclusion of quantum mechanics, as Albert Einstein attempted to show, with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, that quantum mechanics is an incomplete theory, and also shows that Newton's laws have a limit of applicability. I.e., Newtonian mechanics is therefore incomplete. Here the boundaries of our viewpoints start to appear; we start to see how parochial are our concepts of what reality, perfection etc. May I suggest a mass-replace of obsolete with incomplete?

• Superceded (Superceded scientific theories) - I started this article almost two years ago. I used the term "obsolete scientific theory" because I could think of no better term for it, and I put up the above request for a better name at the same time — "obsolete theory" does not come from the literature and I don't believe it to be in general usage. David Kernow recently changed one mention of obsoleted to superceded. Superceded is the word I'd been looking for: it is more neutral, clear, and broader than obsoleted. If no one objects I plan to change the title and headings to use the term "superceded" rather than "obsoleted". (Incomplete is a good suggestion, but Incomplete scientific theories would be a different article, as quantum mechanics may be incomplete, but has not been superceded, AFAIK). —Pengo 15:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Weissmann barrier

By the way, to put the Weissmann barrier under obsolete theories, even with the qualifier that I added, is ludicrously POV. You might as well -- exacly as well -- put Evolution here, since the ID folks believe they've disproved it. It's exactly what happens when one creates a page like this: all the die-hards come out and assert that their ancient theories are not obsolete; what's obsolete is the stuff on which 99% of the science being performed in a field is based. Dandrake 02:27, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

most biology theories have exceptions. i actually put the weissmann barrier onto the page without thinking about it -- probably a mistake. so far there haven't been any real die hards trying to push their view point, and i dont think they will any time soon -- other than asking for a note to say their pet theory "isn't totally dead yet" -- and even then they hardly need to as that's being done for them. i think the real problem is how to classify theories that are still practical but otherwise disproven, or simply have minor exceptions (like weissmann's might) -- but i think that will sort itself out as the page grows.

perhaps a speculative page on what theories are on the way out would be more fun.. i mean.. controversial. Pengo 02:56, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to keep nattering about this, but it gets more interesting. The Wiki article on the barrier leads one to a Web page that is not talking neo-Lamarckian nonsense doctrine, but raising what may be a valid problem relative to gene therapy. The relation of this to the validity of the "Weissmann barrier" is very dubious, though in a way it points out the sense in which the Wb is obsolete: it's an old dictum which, though essentially correct today, represents a 19th-century understanding. Guess I'll have to work with the Wb article. Dandrake 19:40, Feb 28, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the Weismann Barrier from the list of obsolete biology theories, because it doesn't seem to fit with things like spontaneous generation and Lamarckism. If anyone objects to this, feel free to add it back in. Factitious 03:25, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Creationism

I fail to see how Creationism can be listed as an 'obsolete science', when "The Hollow Earth theory claims that the Earth is hollow, and its inside is possibly populated by a race of superbeings, humans or aliens, and possibly dinosaurs", a much less widely-held world view, is acceptable in the list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories.

Safest to leave Creationism in the list of alternative, speculative and disputed theories (where other religious or psuedo-religious theories are listed too), and remove it from the 'obsoleted' list. Tamias

Well, why is it still there? Any creationist (such as myself) could just as easily put evolution in the same place, even though the truth or falsehood of either cannot be proved. Since it is clearly POV, I have removed it. BASICwebmaster 05:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

But that's wrong. Evolution has been proven correct over and over again. --Dekker451 (talk) 13:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Creationism shouldn't be here simply because it was never a scientific theory. --Tothebarricades 01:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - creationism was never a scientific theory. Bubba73 (talk), 01:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for obsolete theories of electricity

There were several interesting but wrong (some slightly, some very) theories of electricity and magnetism. I have some references in some old college readers, but I thought someone else might be familiar with some examples (or able to find them on Google or elsewhere in the encyclopedia) before I get around to thinking about the question again (which might be several months). -- Beland 05:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Obsolete or not?

At the moment Geocentric model is in the Category:Obsolete scientific theories while Bohr atom is not. Both are now commonly held to be ontologically deficient but both are still useful for computation and pedagogy. Surely we should be consistent but which way? Cutler 20:43, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

The Universe is Obsolete?

Are you kidding me? There is ZERO proof of a multiverse. It is entirely conjecture. Conjecture which I resonate with, but not scientific knowledge. Next are you going to tell me that the 4 dimensional world is obsoleted by the 11 dimensional world? I am removing this at once. (CHF 06:13, 17 November 2005 (UTC))

Basic spelling issue

The correct spelling, both in U.S. and U.K. English, is actually "superseded"--go ahead, look it up (I didn't believe it at first, either). But I'm a relative newcomer to Wikipedia and since the word is part of the title of this article, if I correct the spelling, it will probably mess up various links to this page. So I don't know what to do. Help? Thanks. DSatz 06:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

• The OED does list supercede as an alternate, but it is only quoted in 19th century texts—supersede is clearly the preferred spelling. I'll move the page. (You can read about how to do this at meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page; it's not too hard.) Brighterorange 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

theories, hypotheses and models

Some "theories" are more properly called hypotheses (such as about the aether) and models (such as of the atom). Should such distinctions not be made here? Harald88 21:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I expect that in a section that talks about theories, the examples presented ought to be theories. Start a section on superseded hypothesis or models or whatever if you want to talk about those. Re-title this page to "Superseded Ideas in Science." Pooua (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

problem with change of definition

Someone changed the difinition of "no longer considered the most complete description of reality by mainstream [[science]" to the current one. However, a change of definition causes a changes of content. For example, the old definiton applies to ether theories, but the new one doesn't - the last ether-based (nowadays called "field") theories by Lorentz and Einstein are as accurate as can get. I think that superseded should apply to all scientific theories that are not commonly used anymore and not only to "less accurate" theories. Note also that a (metaphysical)concept such as aether (or spacetime) is not a scientific theory! Harald88 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

geocentric universe

right in the intro, it says that "Some theories which were only supported under specific political authorities may be included (like Lysenkoism) or may not be included (like the model of a geocentric universe)", but then down the list i see "Ptolemaic system/Geocentric universe". is ptolemaic/geocentric different from plain geocentric, or is that a mistake? --dan 04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And He formed the earth ...

I think this has the basis of a good article but lacks the things discussed at featured list nomination above. I included expanding earth a while ago but am interested to see how this page can illustrate the formation of paradigms in science. Don't think it should be adopted by physics project only but best examples would be those. Fred.e 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Continental Drift?

As I understood it, the theory of contiental drift simply says that the continents move about a bit. It's not been replaced by plate tectonics, but plate tectonics is simply the mechanism by which continental drift occurs. Wegener's original vague theories for the mechanism have been discredited in favour of plate tectonics, not continental drift itself. Or am I completely wrong? It has been known. --MockTurtle 18:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Formatting error in the "Approximate Theories" section?

In this section, the following are two bulleted points: "Atomic theory - Atoms are no longer thought to be indivisible, but are now seen to be composites" and "Nuclei disintegrate at high energy". It seems to me that the second point was meant to be an explaination of the first point. 134.173.74.161 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Progression of the atomic theory

I was just reading some fun stuff in Asimov's Understanding Physics about how, historically, a lot was figured out about nuclear isotopes before the discovery of the neutron, and that all the theoreticians in this time were working with a ridiculous model (ridiculous only in hindsight, since the strong nuclear force hadn't been discovered yet) of extra electrons embedded among the protons in the atomic nucleus to cancel out the necessary amounts of charge. This model was short-lived, certainly, but some important contributions to science were made during its short lifetime. Ought it not have a name? arkuat (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific theories? I don't think so.

Geocentric universe? Flat Earth theory? Astrology? The first paragraph calls this a list of scientific theories, but this seems like a list of historical conjectures. "Theory" in everyday language is not nearly the same thing as a scientific theory.

List of minority-opinion scientific theories AFD

List of minority-opinion scientific theories has been proposed for deletion. Feel free to give your opinion. —Pengo 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Are Superceded/Obsolete Scientific Theories Really Pseudoscience or Something Else?

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this page, and the Obsolete Scientific Theories category, requires a citation from a reliable general source like the Encyclopedia Britannica describing the subject as pseudoscience, or a reliable academic source such as an Academy of Science which considers the subject to be pseudoscience, so as to sustain the category's placement. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this page and its corresponding category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

This is getting tedious...would it pain you to finish a relevant & related conversation before jumping into the talk page of a highly related subject to apply your template message? Maybe even link to a relevant discussion?

Regarding this page...did you read the list of topics? There are clearly topics on this page that should be (and are) categorized as pseudoscience. That makes Category:Pseudoscience a generally applicable category. As with the categorization of a category (this discussion), the categorization of a list is common sensically more utilitarian than a single article--and the linkage is, to me, self-evident. As with obsolete theories, any adherents to a superseded may display the hallmarks of pseudoscience. — Scientizzle 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

This article will need references if it is to ever reach GA status. It frankly amazes me that it was ever assessed as a B class article in its present unreferenced state. While it appears well written it is not verifiable without references. I don't consider that to be a major problem in the portion which is just a list of wikilinks, but the introduction at least should be referenced.Trilobitealive (talk) 13:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC) (See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Superseded scientific theory for other opinion about its lack of references.) Trilobitealive (talk) 13:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what?

This article reads as if it were written word for word by creationist lobbyists or someone else attempting to discredit the scientific process. It refers to conjectures and widespread beliefs as if they were scientific theories. For example, it refers to miasmatic theory as if it were a scientific theory, despite the fact that miasmatic theory came about in Ancient Greece, millenia before the scientific method was even established! This disinformation is multiplied by the fact that the definition of a scientific theory is stated in the opening of the article, and then the term, "theory," is used for its common use repetitively after that. If this were the only error it could be fixed, however it appears as though the entire article has been written for the sole purpose of attempting to show the previous errors in science, and then expanding that list to include the previous errors of human thought, and then make no distinctions between the two. To actually fix this article would take much more effort than I have to spare at the moment, and is properly more editing than one person should do to an article, but there is so much disinformation and misleading information in this article that it is somewhat unbelievable.

This afternoon I'm going to create a new article for previously widely held beliefs in humanity's history, and then properly sort the items into the two. As it stands, this article is just creationist propaganda.

Additionally, there is no need for this article to be under the pseudoscience tag. A superceded scientific theory is not pseudoscience, it is obsoleted science. That is a grave distinction. Also, an idea that was created before the scientific theory was is also not pseudoscience, but just a myth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.212.161.229 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

124.212.161.229, when was the scientific method established? The theories of Newton and Einstein give different positions for the planet Mercury in its orbit. They also differ over the other planets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.38.222 (talk) 10:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You might contact our wp:Reference desk/science for this. DVdm (talk) 12:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

124.212.161.229 is claiming that Mercury is a creationist plot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The Earth, Mars and Venus, all of which produce relativistic effects, are creationist plots, according to 124.212.161.229. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Misapplies specific disproof into too many applications.

Geological catastrophism is only partially obsolete, since some catastrophic events have undeniably happened. Of course much of geology is gradual, but not all.

Lamarckian inheritance is actually partially vindicated by epigenetics.

Telogeny is in a (very) small part vindicated by chimera research, that fetus cells can stay in a mother`s body, although of course only if it was a pregnancy. By the way, the Nazi Nurenberger laws from 1935 did not mention previous mates of the mother at all, only parents and grandparents.

Cultural "universals" (more properly called "globals") do not prove that it is innate. Similar behaviors can be instrumentally invented because of similar problems.

The definition of "purely behaviorist theory of language acquisition" is unclear. Poverty of the genome debunks nativist reductionism at least as much as poverty of the stimulus debunks behaviorist reductionism. Emergent theories are undeniably necessary. Classical Skinnerian behaviorism is obsolete. But arguments on the lines of "language is very complicated yet children learn it easily" are invariably symptoms of the "general intelligence is reducable to mental age" fallacy. Human brains differ in general ability from animal brains not only in learning ability but also in neurological precision, since brainpower improves the precision of conceptualization. All differences between human symbolic language aquisition and animal associative learning can be explained by the difference in conceptual precision, as shown by the fact that human language differs from animal communication primarily by having specific words for specific concepts instead of just signals for whole contexts. As shown by studies of science-like exploration of the world performed by human children, the ability to ask questions can also be explained by conceptual precision.

Please make the article more precise and stop doing false generalizations!217.28.207.226 (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

The bullet-point form of this article doesn't lend itself to explaining the subtleties you've outlined (not to say we shouldn't try), though sometimes there's already hints of it. For example, Lamarckism does mention epigenetics as one of the theories it's been obsoleted by. If you'd like to contribute to the article, adding a discussion of the topics you mention would be most welcome. —Pengo 23:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that all are completely discarded, the lede says "... in these cases, the older theory is often still useful because it provides a description that is "good enough" for many purpose". This is the case for some of the obselete theories. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Dates might be helpful

The reader would have a much better idea of context if some dates were judiciously used. As it might be difficult to date theories or their obsolescence, it would be possible to include birth-death dates of specific persons. Any thoughts? YBG (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Removed 'Lumniferous Aether' and 'Classical physics'

While I agree that there are obsolete and superseded scientific theories, you cannot simply dismiss classical physics as superseded altogehter! That would be deafening arrogance towards the very history of science. Besides, many different kinds of lumniferous aether have been proposed, and until quantum physics comes up with an even remotely sensible explanation for the mechanisms responsible for natural law, and as long as mainstream science remains where we are now, in the dark about what 70% of the universe is even made of, it makes no sense to conclusively discard such theories, aspects of which may still bear importance for future research.

I understand that there is a reasonable interest in keeping the hordes of pseudo-scientist-tesla-free-energy-amateurs at bay with their conspiracy theories etc.; but we have an obligation to be humble towards truth itself, since history has demonstrated how false our beliefs about a certain principle or concept often are.

"Steady State Theory, a model developed by Hermann Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle whereby the expanding universe was in a steady state, and had no beginning. It was a competitor of the Big Bang model until evidence supporting the Big Bang and falsifying the steady state was found." Again, evidence thought to support the Big Bang theory does _not_ prove it true, and thus does _not_ disprove or prove any other theory regarding the state of the universe (steady, expanding, contracting, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.190.24.26 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Classical physics while useful has been superseded: being superseded doesn't mean that something isn't useful. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Big Bang theory has been proved to be true; but that the evidence has invalidated steady state theory. There is a difference. That is what science does; it puts hypotheses to the test and invalidates them if they fail the test. From a wikipedia point of view we can add theories that are regarded as being superseded to the list as long as they are regarded as such by the scientific mainstream. If you are uncertain about any specific entry, mark them with the citation needed template, and someone will get the citation. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is plate tectonics listed?

I thought plate tectonics was still the accepted theory that explained continental drift?

Evoactivity (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded that to avoid confusion. Vsmith (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Confuses the concept of a scientific theory

Many of the "theories" included in this article are simply historical ideas and do not fit the definition of a modern scientific theory. This article simply adds to the rampant confusion between the concept of the scientific theory and the more common use of the word "theory".

Here is a quotation from the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

""A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.""

I believe that this definition excludes many of the "theories" listed in this article. Of course each topic could have its own debate as to its eligibility as a theory, I don't think that Wikipedia is the place. Just like Wikipedia is not the place to debate the legitimacy of biological taxonomic classifications. I suggest that this article be renamed to "Superseded scientific ideas". And the word "theory" should be avoided in most cases to remove the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyrtex (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, most of these "theories" are hypotheses, a very different beast. --Randykitty (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Change the definition all you want. They were labeled "theory" at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.71.0.226 (talk) 04:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

We should use the modern definition to avoid ambiguity while acknowledging whatever terms were historically used. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Telegony

'Telegony – the theory that an offspring can inherit characteristics from a previous mate of its mother's as well as its actual parents, often associated with racism'.

Should this be counted as superseded or obsolete? While it may not be true in humans, the page for telegony states that 'a group from The University of New South Wales[14] has showed telegony to be a true and valid phenomenon for the first time in a species of fly'.

Wi11337 (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Improved lead

Presuming that the current deletion discussion results in a 'keep' decision, I think the best way forward is to first improve the lead, and then, if necessary, move the article to an appropriate title.

Here is how I think the lead should be organized:

1. Define the topic
2. Clarify the universe of ideas topics to be considered
3. Clarify what it means to be superseded, ie, rejected as false or replaced by something more accurate.

Next, my stab at the first sentence:

• This is a list of ideas about the natural world that were once widely accepted by natural scientists (or their predecessors, natural philosophers) which have now been superseded by more accurate ideas.

Comments? YBG (talk) 03:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a revised idea for the first sentence:

• This is a list of ideas about the natural world that were once widely accepted by natural scientists (or their predecessors, natural philosophers) which as a result of experiments are now widely understood to be inadequate, incomplete or false and so superseded by more accurate ideas.

It is disappointing that in the two years since my suggestion above there have been no comments. It is my belief that until a better lede is constructed, we will continue to have periodic discussions as the one that prompted my 2014 comment and the one currently going on. YBG (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. There is a general sense that some move may be needed, but no agreement that the proposed title is the best one. It's therefore best to follow the suggestions made in comments below to come up with the best title before starting a new RM. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Superseded scientific theories → Superseded scientific ideas – The article is more about ideas than theories, at least to the extent that testability is important in theories. See the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superseded scientific theories. This new title may help frame the issues in the above /* Improved lead */ section, and thos ethat led to the Afd in the first place. This new title seems to meet the requirements of being recognizable, natural, concise, and relatively precise, given the subject matter. The term "superseded scientific ideas" has some usage, see quotes here. Bejnar (talk) 10:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose the move as proposed. I'm sympathetic to the nominator's issues with the present title, but what's a "scientific idea"? Is it distinct from a mere "idea"? If so, how? Are there ideas that aren't scientific? Which of those are in scope, and which aren't? You might think that the answers to these questions are obvious (they are), but a short page title has no room for a discussion of those answers. The word "theory", with a loaded scientific meaning, at least acts as a proxy definition of the scope. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - This probably merits a discussion thread on possible names before proposing the move. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am not sure that Superseded scientific ideas is the right title. Perhaps "Superseded Ideas in Science and Natural Philosophy". In my opinion a scientific idea would be an idea that arose from the application of the scientific method. Many of the entries in this article came from an era that predates the scientific method or a time when the application of the scientific method was a bit fuzzy. It seems to me that this article is meant to document changes in human perceptions toward the natural world. I think that we need a title that is inclusive to the early ideas of natural philosophy, but exclusive of things like theology ect., or we could keep the current title and start deleting all the entries that shouldn't be there. In the spirit of good faith, I will wait before making deletions. Although, I do think that a few like "Island of California" will need to be removed regardless of a new title.Xyrtex (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Xyrtex I think that you make a valid idea with Superseded ideas in science and natural philosophy. While not wanting to supersede this I would also like to suggest: Superseded ideas, concepts and theories in science and natural philosophy. GregKaye 06:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose move. Nothing wrong with current title. Theory is a broad concept and the article seems to cover that in a sufficiently balanced way. - DVdm (talk) 18:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm confused. What concept of theory are you referring to? Numerous references are available that discuss the definition of a scientific theory and the difference from the common use of the word theory. Do you have a reference for the broad concept that you speak of? Are you suggesting that all (or even a majority )of the entries in this article are scientific theories?Xyrtex (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Referring to the concept(s) as outlined in our article Theory. - DVdm (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The article clearly is referring to scientific theory.Xyrtex (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So is this one, at least in a sufficient way to keep the title, i.m.o. - DVdm (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Once again I am confused. Are you saying that theory is synonymous with scientific theory? I think that the point here is that most of the content of this article will need to be removed as it stands under the title of scientific theories. Do you feel that all the entries that are not scientific theories should be deleted, or do you feel that the term scientific theory is, for the most part, properly used here?Xyrtex (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

But many of the ideas in the article are not scientific in the sense of "scientific theory". --Bejnar (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment As I mentioned above, I think the best way forward is to re-write the lead paragraph before deciding what is the best title. YBG (talk) 19:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support in theory, but share the concerns expressed above. Regardless, the present title is clearly misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus?

The first sentence of this article states that superceded scientific theories were once accepted by the "mainstream scientific consensus." Consensus doesn't seem to be an essentieal part of superceded scientific theory; in what Thomas Kuhn once called the pre-paradigm stage, there were several competing scientific thories, most (or all) of which are now consideed to have been inadequate. Taking a couple of examples from the list: preformationism was one of a number of rival theories of the origin of biological organisms; the emission theory of vision coexisted for a long time with intromission theories, until finally superceded by Alhacen's theory intromission theory which creatively drew elements from the mathematics of the emission theory.

At the least, the requirement for consensus should be removed from the lead. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a critical discussion, because the value of contemporary "science" is often attacked by non-scientists with no understanding of the scientific method. Their argument is typically, "Many ridiculous scientific theories were accepted in the past. Therefore, science is untrustworthy. We should not trust scientific theories of today." That argument is based on a false premise, which must be corrected in this article.

Here is the false premise: the discredited ideas listed in the article are scientific. They are not.

The discredited ideas listed in the article, e.g. "miasma theory of disease," are properly called "philosophies," "beliefs," "convictions," "deductions," "speculations," "conjectures," etc. All of those descriptions fit the colloquial, not the scientific, definition of the word "theory."

For example, the article itself states there was "no experimental support" for the "miasma theory." That is an oxymoron. A scientific theory MUST have robust empirical support; if not, it is not a scientific theory.

The confusion arises among the non-scientific public because the Scientific Method has proven so successful in explaining the natural world, that all methods which purport to explain the natural world are often today (mistakenly) called "scientific." The natural world is the domain of many explanatory methodologies (e.g. religion, folklore, mythology, voodoo). Only one methodology is properly called "scientific": the one grounded in the Scientific Method.

Hence, it's as misleading to call "miasma theory" a superseded scientific theory, as it is to call "voodoo" a superseded scientific theory.

Some of the discredited ideas listed in this article predate the first known description of what we now call the Scientific Method by thousands of years. What we now call the Scientific Method was first described by Francis Bacon in 1620, who called it "Novum Organum Scientiarum," (New Instrument of Knowledge). It wasn’t until the 19th Century that Bacon’s “Instrument of Knowledge,” due to its demonstrated success, acquired the name “Science” (from the Latin “scientia,” from “sciens,” which means having knowledge, from the present participle of “scire,” meaning to know).

In the context of the Scientific Method, “theory” has a related, but different meaning than in colloquial English. **Everything** in science is a theory. For example, “Gravitation” is a theory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation). Scientific theories are never “proved,” the way a deduction can be logically proved. The Scientific Method does not prove theories. It empirically disproves false ones. So, scientific theories are inductively substantiated on a continuum of confidence from “weak” to “strong". Indeed, the whole process of “doing science” is one of continuously trying to empirically disprove current theories, discarding them, creating new theories, then attempting to disprove those. In the process, confidence in the current theory grows. Thus, “the theory of gravity” *could* be wrong. By analogy, one *could* win a lottery ticket. The question is, where do you want to place your bet? Though not perfect, scientists are rigorously trained to place good bets on their explanation of the natural world.

Please see description of The Scientific Method (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method). Any idea predating the invention of the Scientific Method is, by definition, not scientific. Nor is any idea which originates in a non-scientific methodology, scientific. What makes something “scientific” isn’t the domain (the natural world); it is the methodology.

Thus a better title for this article is, “Pre-Scientific Explanations of the Natural World,” or perhaps, “Pre-Science.” Fredric5765 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

If the proposer wants to advance this proposal for a change in the article's title, it should be done by a formal request to move the article. I should point out it will be a controversial proposal (I, for one, would oppose it).

The proposal misses the fact that this is a history of science article and historians of science include the sciences of different times and cultures among their definition of science. I could quote many definitions of science proposed by historians of science but one fairly complete and generally accepted one is that of David Pingree: "Science is a systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or else is based on such an explanation. Mathematics finds a place in science only as one of the symbolical languages in which scientific explanations may be expressed. This definition deliberately fails to distinguish between true and false science, for explanations of phenomena are never complete and can never be proved to be 'true'".

Such a broad definition encompasses all attempts to come to a systematic explanation of natural phenomena -- everything from Aristotle's Physics to Stephen Hawking's -- within the framework of scientific theory. Hence the title of the article is well-founded. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will either make the formal request to move (your suggestion), or propose edits to this article to differentiate the "Pre-Scientific Era" from the "Post-Scientific Era" in the "History of Science."

Definition of prescientific

   :  of, relating to, or having the characteristics of a period before the rise of modern science or a state prior to the application of the scientific method

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prescientific

Re: the Pingree quote (above), most any modern scientist would likely agree. His (valid) point is that mathematics is merely a useful scientific tool, as a telescope is a useful scientific tool. Neither the use of mathematics nor the use of a telescope makes any theory, about anything, more credible. Mathematical proofs can be epistemologically certain within the domain of mathematics, period. Scientific theories can never be epistemologically certain, even if they rely upon mathematics. But they are still very different from non-scientific theories: scientific theories become strengthened by empirical evidence, else they are discarded.

The first sentence of this article is, "A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once widely accepted within the mainstream scientific community..." None of the examples cited in this article meet that criterion. The "mainstream scientific community" (i.e. practitioners of the Scientific Method) did not even exist until the invention of the Scientific Method. "The concept of scientific communities emerged in the second half of the 19th century, not before, because it was in this century that the language of modern science emerged, the professionalization of science occurred, specialized institutions were created, and the specialization of scientific disciplines and fields occurred." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community

Re: the McCluskey quote (above), it's true that "such a broad definition encompasses all attempts to come to a systematic explanation of natural phenomena." But based on the comments here, that seems quite misleading for everyone except, perhaps, historians of science. It's a problem because skeptics of modern science (post-scientific method) argue that no result of modern science should be trusted, because there exist examples of bad results achieved by practitioners in the same domain, using antiquated methods, and results from modern methods are not perfect (mathematically provable). That's like arguing that modern indoor plumbing should not be trusted, because people once got cholera from water wells, and people sometimes still get cholera from water.

Most people reading this article are neither scientists nor historians. Granting that historians and scientists define "science" differently, at the very least, the different meanings of the word should be provided here:

"In the context of modern historical studies, 'science' encompasses all explanations of the natural world, such as the methods used by ancient Greek philosophers. In all other contexts, 'science' means the application of the Scientific Method to the study of the natural world, a practice which began in the late 18th Century."

Also, see e.g. "History of Medicine" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine#19th_century:_Rise_of_modern_medicine

"During the Age of Enlightenment, the 18th-century, science was held in high esteem and physicians upgraded their social status by becoming more scientific." "19th century: Rise of modern medicine"

Another idea is, if this is an article about "History of Science," then it should be organized chronologically and divided into "Pre-Modern" and "Modern" era. "Modern" means after the invention of the Scientific Method.

2601:602:8C01:76BC:98EE:F977:BD69:D180 (talk) 16:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Made obsolete by Copernicus

The article says Geocentric theory and the ptolemaic system were made obselete by Copernicus but at his time most scientists rejected heliocentricism and it was later discoveries that led to geocentricism being abandoned.Ilikerabbits! (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Citations needed

Since 2008 this article has had a template flagging that citations are needed. Very few have been provided.

The Manual of Style specifies that "Stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines for articles, including verifiability and citing sources. This means statements should be sourced where they appear, and they must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." The four kinds of material mentioned here include "Any statement that you believe is likely to be challenged."

As it stands, most of this article is unverified and open to challenge and has been so for almost a decade, and is therefore liable to deletion. Would editors please provide citations for each item on the list. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I just came across a further section of the MOS, which spells out citation policies for lists more clearly: "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references), No original research, and Neutral point of view, plus the other content policies as well." --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Democritus atoms

It is written in the article, that Democritus atom theory is superseded. But it is needed to say that it was not Democritus who identified his concept od atoms which what se call atoms now, therefor it is false to consider his theory superseded because we regard now atoms as divideable. On the other hand, Democritus had diferent claims about atoms, sugesting for types of particles with accordance to four elements. --46.135.37.220 (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Theory vs Hypothesis

The only objection I have here is it seems to be written by someone who is unfamiliar with the difference between a Hypothesis, and a Theory.

A Hypothesis is the First Step in the Scientific Method. It is the idea someone comes up with to explain an observed phenomenon, or a supposed phenomenon not yet observed.

Once a Theory is formulated, the Second Step of the Scientific Method is to test the hypothesis to determine if it does predict the outcome of your tests>

When a Hypothesis is tested and is shown to accurately predict the outcome each and every time in, and under, all conditions, then you have a Scientific Law. However, if it does not predict everything that happens, then you must refine your Hypothesis into a THEORY. A Theory is a partially tested Hypothesis, it explains certain outcomes but not all outcomes. When he Theory if finalized, then you retest the Theory. If the theory doe snot still predicts all outcomes of your test you once age refine your theory and retest until either you have a theory that always predicts the outcomes, OR, you reach an impasse in your ability to test your Theory.

An example of a scientific impasse is RELATIVITY THEORY.

Because Relativity theory deals with the Univers, many of its predictions cannot be tested, because we cannot build a universe in the laboratory. Thus we must wait to see evidence of its predictions. For much of its history, there was no technical ability to see or detect many of Relativity Theories predictions as well. Recently we detected the First Gravity Wave proving one of its predictions, but many predictions still remain unseen and undetected.

BUT Relativity Theory has a BIG problem. In 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the Universe was expanding. This expansion is due to the Big Bang but Big Bangs are impossible in Relativistic Space. In Relativity Theory the universe is static, but in real life, it is not. NO explanation uniting this observation with Relativity Theory has yet been found. Without an explanation, Einstein's work can never become a Law such as Mass Energy Equivalence (E=mc2) is a Law.

Because a Theory is partially tested, it can be superseded, only by a theory that better predict test outcomes, NOT BY CONSENSUS. Science NEVER works by consensus. Science is based on empirical testing and observation, not consensus. Consensus has NOTHING to do with science. Science is testable, religion is a consensus.2600:1700:5D90:3780:3C58:91D0:FA0C:8B81 (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please take our wp:Talk page guidelines into account. This talk page is for discussions about the artcile, not the subject. Your message is therefore essentially off-topic. - DVdm (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

misunderstanding of "scientific theory"

This article lists "scientific theories" that are supposedly superseded or considered false. Almost every single "theory" listed is not a scientific theory as it is understood in science. Many are a hypothesis, and others are pseudoscience. This should be changed to something along the lines of "Superseded hypotheses and pseudo-scientific beliefs". If you actually view the Wikipedia pages of those "scientific theories" listed, many of the pages themselves clearly say "hypothesis" or "belief". If it's a hypothesis, then it's not a theory. This page is clearly talking about "scientific theories", in which case the colloquial usage of "theory" does not apply (which is the way it's currently used) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Np9990 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In practice, there is no hard and fast distinction between a theory and a hypothesis. And the spontaneous generation page (which you removed and I restored) describes it as a theory anyway William M. Connolley (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

In science, there is a huge distinction between an untested idea that's been around for thousands of years (which is what spontaneous generation is), and a scientific theory, which, by Wikipedia's own definition, is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed, preferably using a written, pre-defined, protocol of observations and experiments.". The scientific method did not even exist when this idea arose, and the testing of this hypothesis is what disproved it. If it was disproved by an experiment, it cannot ever be a "scientific theory", because it contradicts Wikipedia's own definition, and does not belong on this page. In fact, almost none of those listed belong on this page. The "theory of spontaneous generation", if that is what it's called, is wrong. This page needs to be renamed, or majority of the items listed need to be removed to accurately reflect actual scientific theories that were superseded. Np9990 (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with restoration of the content. I have restored the link to spontaneous generation. First try to establish wp:consensus to remove it here. Without that consensus, it should remain here—see wp:NOCONSENSUS and wp:BRD: you boldly Removed something, it was Reverted, and now we Discuss, and pending an outcome, the content stays. - DVdm (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It stays until a consensus is reached. My difficulty is with the use of "Scientific" for many of these. They were explanations, but they were not used like a theory would be, as they are not predictive or even properly tested. A lot of the superseded theories discussed are part of the basis for the current theory, so it is really hard to draw a line through many of these. JSR (talk) 19:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is true that a lot of actual scientific theories were based on ideas from these hypotheses, but it is wrong that these unproven hypotheses are being characterized as "scientific theories". Either the title needs to change, or the list. Np9990 (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

^{(edit conflict)} Indeed, hard to draw a line. Also note that a theory that was called "scientific" then, might not be called scientific anymore, precisely because it was superseded. On the other hand, indeed as Np9990 says, "the scientific method did not even exist when this idea arose", but perhaps the method did already exist while the theory was still considered to be possibly plausible. - DVdm (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Even if a hypothesis was called a theory then, what difference does it make to the usage of the term now? The context of "scientific theory" is that of now, not that of then, because it was never a scientific theory as we define it now. Scientific theory clearly defines it as well-substantiated, repeatedly tested, and reliable, and not as "considered to be possibly plausible". It's actually quite surprising that this is even a point of contention and not blatantly obvious. Np9990 (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest that the best way forward to improve the lede? I initiated such a discussion some time back, but it has not attracted much attention. YBG (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps all that is needed, is a little lead adjustment to accomodate for a broader meaning of the term "scientific"—broader, in the historical sense, so to speak. For instance, something like this: ^{(modifications to current in italics)}

A superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory or idea that was once widely accepted within the then mainstream scientific community...

That would keep the article title intact, and the wp:FIRSTSENTENCE would still define the subject, which your two suggestions not really did. And perhaps that is the reason why there was response to that thread. - DVdm (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If we look seriously at the history of scientific ideas, we find that many well founded scientific theories turn out to be in error, either as new concepts are raised and revolutionize a discipline (e.g., how Newton's development of the concept of force revolutionized physics) or as a major change within an ongoing scientific framework produces fundamental changes (e.g., how Copernicus's heliocentric model transformed geometrical astronomy while maintaining the conceptual framework used since Ptolemy). The superseded models were often quite successful (within the levels of precision expected at a given time).

Consider that Ptolemy's astronomical model not only accurately predicted the changing positions of the planets and such concomitant effects as the times and durations of eclipses, but even led to internally consistent (albeit now shown to be erroneous) calculations of the distances of the planets. Adherents of these obsolete theories often used them to explain their observations of the world and we must be cautions about dismissing them as pseudoscience. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

A possible way to resolve this -- and similar future arguments -- would be to add a brief discussion of the arguments that had been advanced in favor of the obsolete theories before they were rejected. As it reads now tha article seems to list the theories as if the evidence for rejecting these theories was obvious. In fact, the theories were maintained by serious thinkers (lets avoid the word scientists here) and were only rejected after significant work was undertaken to demonstrate their weaknesses. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

This article refers to the history of science. In it's history practitioners were self appointed and formed societies. To judge the past by formal disciplines that exist today would only conclude that they weren't scientists and weren't practicing science. I would be in favor of an expanded lede, pointing out that "scientist", "scientific theory" and "scientific method" have very different meanings in the present than they did in the past.Dougmcdonell (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I cannot stress enough how seriously something needs to change here. I found this page because a smug creationist sent it to me as "proof" that many "scientific theories" have been abandoned. There are almost NO actual theories. It could be argued that modern science did not begin until Pasteur developed the scientific method, so any "theory" held before then cannot be classed as "scientific". Indeed, notions (I use that word deliberately) like "spontaneous generation" can only be held to be "philosophies". Calling them "scientific" is frankly insulting to us scientists. I would strongly suggest that this page be divided up differently. A (probably very short) section on abandoned or modified (actual) theories that are from the "modern" era, followed by a much longer section on philosophies. The lede needs drastic alteration. I will leave others to deal with this for now, but if this page has not changed in a week I will start making changes myself. As it stands, it is, frankly, in error. FimusTauri (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. While perusing the heated discussion I got the sense that the disagreement is actually semantic in nature. Thus, I recommend a quite simple Solomonic remedy; that the page simply be renamed as Superseded theories in science, and the same careful language be adopted in the text of the article. Thus, the phrase "scientific theory" and its baggage are avoided, and is superseded (if you will) by a linguistic formulation that allows the word "theory" to be used in its broader or colloquial sense, thus avoiding the quandary altogether. Jay Hodec (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jay Hodec that a neutral solution could be to rename the article as Superseded theories in science, and avoiding phrases like "scientific theory" to use the word "theory" in its broader or colloquial sense. Don't you think this could be a good solution DVdm?James343e (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Some definitions of Science

Since this discussion focuses on the question of whether the examples given here qualify as scientific, I thought it might be useful to provide a few published definitions of science. (I could provide more, but these are sufficient to illustrate my point).

• "For our purpose, science may be defined as ordered knowledge of natural phenomena and of the relations between them."

—William C. Dampier-Whetham, Encyclopædia Brittanica, 11th ed., s.v. Science (1911)

• "Science is a systematic explanation of perceived or imaginary phenomena, or else is based on such an explanation. Mathematics finds a place in science only as one of the symbolical languages in which scientific explanations may be expressed. This definition deliberately fails to distinguish between true and false science, for explanations of phenomena are never complete and can never be proved to be true."

—David Pingree, "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science," Isis (Special section on the Cultures of Ancient Science), 83, (1992): 554-563.

Besides the question of the proper definition of science, another issue has been raised in this discussion, that is, whether science (or the scientific method) existed before a given date. Pingree's definition above, which appeared in a lengthy discussion of Ancient Science, provides a clear indication that something that can be called science existed in ancient Greece and ancient Mesopotamia. Aristotle, who is sometimes considered the first philosopher to expound a version of the scientific method, defined science this way:

• "We suppose ourselves to possess unqualified scientific knowledge of a thing, as opposed to knowledge of it in the accidental way in which the sophist knows, when we think that we know the cause on which the fact depends, as the cause of that fact and of no other, and further, that the fact could not be other than it is."

—Aristotle, Posterior Analytics, 71^b, 8-12.

In sum, since this article deals with scientific theories that have been superseded in the past — that is, with historical theories — a historically sensitive definition of science like Pingree's seems to appropriate for this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is falsely titled

The vast majority of "scientific theories" listed are not "scientific" at all Deal with it or I start making wholesale changes to this crapfest FimusTauri (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with FimusTauri that many theories listed here are not scientific. James343e (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

First sentence

Twice user James343e removed the qualifier scientific from the first sentence: [1], [2]. Twice for the wrong reasons, i.m.o. So I undid for two reasons, given in my edit summary here: [3]. Comments welcome. - DVdm (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: see also my comment to this technical move request. - DVdm (talk) 10:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi DVdm thanks so much for creating this talk page discussion! I don't know if we are the only ones who will participate on this disuccion or not. Maybe it could be interesting if we both try to be relatively "open minded", in the sense that we both can change our minds if we found good arguments on the opposite part. I will try to be open minded, and will try to understand your position :).

If am not mistaken, your position is that a theory only needs falsifiability to be scientific, not being based on evidence. I understand your position. And you could be very well right! But I think the article maybe could benefit to a change in the title like "Superseded theories" rather than the actual "superseded scientific theories". Why? Because in my opinion, it would be less polemical/controversial. Reading other discussions of the talk page, it seems to me that other Wikipedia editors also found the title "scientific" theories a little bit controversial.

I think we both will agree that the word theory is perfectly fine, since in practice the difference between theory and hypothesis is "weak". (String theory is not called string hypothesis for instance).

Why I personally consider useful to change the title to "superseded theories"? For two reasons:

1) No academic source says that some of the cited theories here like spontaneous generation or alchemy are still considered scientific. Once they were found to be not supported by evidence, they were no longer considered scientific.

Can you find any reliable source suggesting that spontaneous generation or alchemy are still considered scientific?

2) To my knowledge, science is based on evidence, not faith, dogma or popular opinion. I found this source which suggests that science must be based on evidence:

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_06

The website Understanding Science was developed by the University of California at Berkeley, and founded by the National Science Foundation.

Can you find any academic source indicating that science does not need to be based on evidence? James343e (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that this is the place to discuss science. We're discussing the first sentence, and by extension, the title of this article. Comments from other contributors are welcome. - DVdm (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I am disussing specifically the first sentence and the title of this article, I am not discussing off-topic issues. If some of the theories here mentioned like spontaneous generation and alchemy are no longer considered scientific, then it makes no sense to call this article "superseded scientific theories". By logic, superseded theories are not scientific. Theories are considered scientific before they are superseded, once they are superseded they stop being scientific. In any case, the article should be renamed to "superseded theories". I am surprised that you dind't reply to my question, which is related to the title "Superseded scientific theories".

Question: Can you find any reliable source suggesting that spontaneous generation or alchemy are still considered scientific? James343e (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The question is not whether these "are no longer considered scientific". That is irrelevant. The question is whether these are "superseded scientific theories". They once were scientific theories, properly falsifiable, and now, after they were falsified, they are superseded. That is i.m.o. the subject of this article. I think you are thinking about another subject. So pending more comments, for the same reason I also undid this edit. - DVdm (talk) 12:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Supersed theories are never scientific. Theories are scientific before they are superseded, once they are superseded they are not scientific. Spontaneous generation was not a superseded theory before the XIX century. Once it became a superseded theory with the refuting works of Pascal, it was no longer scientific since it was not supported by evidence. And what happens if nobody else replies? Does it mean my changes will be forever deleted? James343e (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with your take on the meanings of the words.

All changes need what we call wp:CONSENSUS here. What we have here at this point, is wp:NOCONSENSUS, and that "commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Don't worry about your changes: they will forever remain visible and accessible in the edit history, and of course here on the talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

"I don't agree at all with your take on the meanings of the words." But why? Please, specify why you don't agree with me. As it states right now, the article seems to implicitly suggest that superseded theories are still scientific, since it is not written anywhere that they are not scientific. And, as its name stands, superseded scientitic theories, indicates that they are still scientific. With the title "supersided theory" this confussion would be eliminated. The theory of spontaneous generation was scientific before being a superseded theory. Once it was a superseded theory in the XIX century with the falsifying experiments of Pasteour, it was no longer considered scientific since it was not supported by evidence. In other words, once it was a superseded theory, it was not scientific. So superseded theories are not scientific.James343e (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your objection that "the article seems to implicitly suggest that superseded theories are still scientific", see my previous comment: yes, they are scientic, and superseded. That's exactly why they are listed here. That's what this article was created for. - DVdm (talk) 13:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable source indicating that spontanous generation is still considered scientific? If not, your claim that superseded theories are scientific is incompatible with evidence. Spontaneous generation was considered scientific before being a superseded theory. Once it was a superseded theory in the XIX century, it was considered non-scientitic.James343e (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not claim that "superseded theories are scientific". I claim that superseded scientific theories are scientific. I think you will find it difficult to find support for your idea that superseded scientific theories are not scientific. - DVdm (talk) 14:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

A (largely) superseded scientific theory could be behaviorism, since it is still supported by evidence to some degree. But this article includes supserseded unscientific theories. To support your claim that spontaneous generation is a superseded scientific theory, you need to find a reliable source indicating that spontaneous generation is still scientific. If you don't find it, it will support my claim that spontaneous gneeration was scientitic before being a superseded theory. Spontaneous generation was scientific in the centuries prior to Pasteour. Spontaneous generation was not a superseded theory in the XVI century. Once it was a superseded theory in the XIX century, it was no longer scientitic. So this article would greatly benefit from the title "superseded theory" since many of the theories here mentioned like spontaneous generation and alchemy are not scientitic. James343e (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your claim that "once it was a superseded theory in the XIX century, it was no longer scientitic": again, see my previous replies. I think we're done here. Other contributors are welcome to comment. - DVdm (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Why done? Because you have no source suggesting that spontaneous generation is scientific? Falsifiability is a necessary but not sufficient condition to have science. Spontaneous generation is falsifiable but not supported by evidence and thus not scientific. Other falsifiable and unscientific notions are the supposed link between autism and vaccines by Andrew Wakefield, astrology and neuro-linguistic programming. Again, this article includes some superseded theories which are not scientific. Spontaneous generation and alchemy are not scientific, so they can be considered superseded theories but not superseded scientific theories. Where is your reliable source that spontenaous generation is scientific?James343e (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If by now you haven't taken a carefull look at wp:CONSENSUS and wp:NOCONSENSUS, please do so. Your options are outlined in the subsections of wp:Consensus#Consensus-building. - DVdm (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DVdm thanks for the discussion. You have been very polite and I have tried to be polite. But it seems obvious that we can't continue this discussion alone, since we find it difficult to agree. I have asked for Wikipedia: Requests for comment. James343e (talk) 16:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Jesus, my head hurts. Just to add my two cents ... I partially agree with James343e regarding the title change, as stated in my previous comment in the above discussion (I recommend the title include the words "Superseded theories in science", though).

I'd just like to address James243e's central argument, which I think is best summarised with his statement "Supersed[sic] theories are never scientific." I take the word "theory" in the scientific sense to mean an organised constellation of ideas and explanations used to interpret and understand a certain scientific phenomena/aspect of study/nature/reality. A "scientific theory" (in the narrowest sense), furthermore, is such a theory which has been generally derived via the use of the scientific method, and is supported by some empirical evidence (I find the use of the word "theory" is a bit nebulous even in scientific literature, though). This however does not mean that such a theory is "correct"; new emerging evidence may conflict with the generally accepted theory, necessitating a shift to another hitherto more marginal theory to better explain the observations, or a forging of a wholly new theory. Or a new theory may be developed which is better able to explain existing empirical evidence.

This does not mean that the "old" theory that has fallen out of favour is no longer "scientific" (per above explanation). It is just no longer best applicable in explaining the empirical evidence at a given moment. There may be several competing scientific theories that may be more or less equally good at explaining the accrued observations at a given point in history, or an old "superseded" theory may sometimes become revived after new evidence emerges (or lack thereof).

In our current discussion on this talk page, we run into the additional conundrums of what is "true" "science" (especially in the historic sense), and whether a theory can be considered scientific when it has not been derived via the scientific method (including because it did not exist during the time). As we seem to be unable to arrive at a consensus regarding this issue, I recommend it be wholly avoided with a careful revision and future careful application of language used in the artice. Kind regards, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the fast reply Jay Hodec. The problem is that some theories mentioned here are clearly not scientific like spontaneous generation. There are no academic sources citing spontaneous generation as a scientific theory. I remember you proposed a fantastic solution to this issue. You said in previous messages that a neutral solution could be to rename the article as Superseded theories in science, and avoiding phrases like scientific theory to use the word theory in its broader or colloquial sense. Don't you think this could be a good solution? James343e (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. As noted in my previous comment, the question of whether e.g. spontaneous generation etc. can be considered a "scientific" "theory" falls under the broader discussion of (firstly) whether we (can) consider intellectual exploration of the world as "science" prior to the advent of modern scientific study, and (secondly) whether theories not based on the scientific method (etc.) can be considered/called "scientific theories".

If we agree that e.g. the Ancient Greeks practiced a form of science, we can use the phrase "theories in science" or "scientific" "theories" (if we consider "scientific" as an adjective derived from "science"). If we consider a "scientific theory" (when applied as a "specific" phrase) as solely a theory which rigorously observes and applies the scientific method (and empiricism/positivism? (I'm a bit weak on the topic of philosophy of science)), then the use of "scientific" "theory" becomes problematic because it has a dual meaning, with one of the interpretations being considered inaccurate/false. The problem is further compounded in regards to the issue whether the use of the word "theory" itself implies a "scientific theory" proper.

From what I can discern, there is some general agreement that science preceded the advent of modern science, but no agreement on whether such theories should be called/considered scientific (or even theories). Sincerely, -J Jay Hodec (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that the use of the word scientific theory for spontaneous generation and other theories here mentioned is problematic/debatable, since no academic source cites spontaneous generation as a scientific theory. I also agree with your solution to change this article name to Superseded theories in science, and avoiding phrases like scientific theory to use the word theory in its broader or colloquial sense. Since there seems to be consensus in the necessity to avoid using a problematic language and changing the title, I will try to change the title and employ the word "theory" rather than "scientific theory". James343e (talk) 12:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Jay Hodec's solution set and edits. Thanks, Jay, and sorry for the headache - DVdm (talk) 06:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Lack of Citations

The 2006 Featured Article review noted the absence of referencs in this article and since May 2010 it has been flagged for lack of citations; the problem has been subsequently discussed on the talk page (now archived). Since little progress has made, I am providing below an example of what this page would look like if all items lacking "one or more references" were removed, in conformance with the Manual of Style, which requires that "all individual items on the list must follow Wikipedia's content policies: the core content policies of Verifiability (through good sources in the item's one or more references)". I don't really want to make such a drastic edit without some comment, but since there has been no reaction to this policy issue for more than a decade, I am ready to perform such a drastic deletion. I hope the addition of sources to the list will make such a drastic edit unnecessary.

Biology

• Scientific racism - the theory that humanity consists of physically discrete superior or inferior races. Rendered obsolete by Human evolutionary genetics and modern anthropology.
• Germ line theory, explained immunoglobulin diversity by proposing that each antibody was encoded in a separate germline gene.

Physics

• Progression of atomic theory
  • John Dalton's model of the atom, which held that atoms are indivisible and indestructible (superseded by nuclear physics) and that all atoms of a given element are identical in mass (superseded by discovery of atomic isotopes).

Geography and climate

• Inland sea of Australia

Psychology

• Pure behaviorist explanations for language acquisition in infancy, falsified by the study of cognitive adaptations for language.
• Psychomotor patterning, a pseudoscientific approach to the treatment of intellectual disabilities, brain injury, learning disabilities, and other cognitive diseases.

Medicine

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

References

I don't think there's a reason to delete list items where there's an internal link to a Wikipedia article, with plenty of references covering the history and replacement of the idea. To meet the technical requirement that each article be supported by in-article citations, it makes sense to copy one or two citations from the linked articles into this one; that would be more productive than just deleting when there's no real verification crisis. -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The sequence of first 3 paragraphs

Hello, thanks for your efforts to provide easy-access to science.

I just wonder if the first 3 paragraph will read better if the current 2nd and 3rd paragraph exchange. The current 3rd paragraph is talking about "totally discarded theory( phlogiston theory)" and "still-working theory (Newtonian physics)". The current 2nd paragraph is about more details of "still-working theory" in "Newtonian physics" and "flat Earth".

So it read better with first current 3rd paragraph of general introduction and then current 2nd paragraph of more details

Thanks

From user of Joyvario， but lost the log-in — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.192.17.5 (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The current order reads well to me. -- Beland (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

On second thought, I started rewriting the first paragraph, and I think the suggested order is indeed better. Though with a bit of a rewrite there as well. -- Beland (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)