Talk:Superseded theories in science/Archives/ 1

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It is written in the article, that Democritus atom theory is superseded.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who identified his concept od atoms which what se call atoms now, therefor it is false to consider his theory superseded because we regard now atoms as divideable.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)