Talk:Superseded theories in science
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superseded theories in science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days ![]() |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2014. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. |
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
The sequence of first 3 paragraphs
[edit]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)
Classical physics entry under discarded theories
[edit]Seems to me that this entry overstates the notion that classical physics has been "superseded" by quantum mechanics and relativity and incorrectly states that it has been "discarded". The parent article says this:
- Classical physical concepts are often used when modern theories are unnecessarily complex for a particular situation... In practice, physical objects ranging from those larger than atoms and molecules, to objects in the macroscopic and astronomical realm, can be well-described (understood) with classical mechanics. ...we can usually ignore quantum mechanics when dealing with everyday objects and the classical description will suffice.
The notion that classical physics has been discarded by the scientific and engineering communities is absurd. This topic is well covered in the Theories now considered incomplete section, so no need to (erroneously) replicate it under Discarded theories section. I'm removing the entry.Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Newton's sine-square law of air resistance
[edit]Newton's sine-square law of air resistance is no longer red-linked. I invite editors here to improve what is more or less a stub at this point. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
Recent Move
[edit]This page was moved from "Superseded theories in science" to "Superseded theories in science and results in mathematics" without discussion and flagged as a minor edit. This was not a minor edit.
Also, there's only one mathematical entry so "results in mathematics" is incorrect.
I'm going to move it back. We can discuss further here about whether to include mathematics or whether the one particular result is worth renaming the entire article or even keeping. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- I asked the editor to revert the move[1] because the entry was based on unreliable sources; they never replied but did replace the source. I forgot to follow up on questioning the move. Schazjmd (talk) 18:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- The only mathematical entry is the Busemann–Petty problem which is listed with a bunch of others at List_of_incomplete_proofs#Incorrect_results. Seems to me that that is the place for that entry, not here. So, I'm going to remove it and the mathematics section and add a link to List_of_incomplete_proofs#Incorrect_results under See Also section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Requested move 9 September 2024
[edit]
![]() | It has been proposed in this section that Superseded theories in science be renamed and moved to List of superseded scientific theories. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. |
Superseded theories in science → List of superseded scientific theories – The page was moved away from this name (sans the "list of") in 2018 citing the fact that the theories are no longer scientific. But the entire point is that they were considered scientific before they were superseded. The current title is clunky and the reasoning for the move was faulty. I believe it should be moved back to its historical name. I can also accept List of obsolete scientific theories which seems to have been the page's original name in 2004. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
- List-Class physics articles
- Mid-importance physics articles
- List-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
- List-Class history of science articles
- High-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- List-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- Wikipedia featured list candidates (contested)
- Requested moves