Talk:Superseded theories in science

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superseded theories in science article.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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 90 days

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2014. The result of the discussion was keep.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

History of Science High‑importance

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Plate tectonics#Subduction discovered|subduction]] The anchor (#Subduction discovered) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Classical physics entry under discarded theories

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)[reply]

Newton's sine-square law of air resistance

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)[reply]

Recent Move

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]