Misplaced Pages

History of pseudoscience: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:29, 31 March 2005 editAncheta Wis (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users39,283 edits See also← Previous edit Revision as of 23:53, 2 April 2005 edit undoBeland (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators236,679 edits (Insertion of material is pending.)Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
:Note: the current contents of this page are expected to change as consensus is reached. :''Note: The contents of this page are expected to change as consensus is reached.''
{{histOfScience}} {{histOfScience}}
This '''history of discredited and pseudoscience'''is an account of the development of the '''protosciences'''; that is, statements about the natural world which were once thought to be authoritative. Protosciences differ from '''pseudoscience''' or '''discredited work''', as they are ''partial'', or ''incomplete work''.

From ] up to the time of the ], inquiry into the workings of the universe was known as ], but this included fields of ] which today have been divorced from science. The ancient people of Western civilization who we might think of as '']'' may have thought of themselves as ''natural philosophers''. In other cases, systematic learning about the ] was a direct outgrowth of ], often as a project of a particular religious community. An account of the development of (natural) philosophy from ancient times until recent times can be found in ]'s ''History of Philosophy''.

] (sculpture)]]
One important feature of ''non-scientific'' natural philosophy is a reluctance to engage in ]. For example, ] is one of the most prolific natural philosophers of ]. He made countless observations of nature, especially the ]s and ] of ]s and ]s in the world around him, which he devote considerable attention to ]. He also made many ]s about the large-scale workings of the universe, which led to his development of a comprehensive theory of physics in his missives of the same name. (See ].)

But Aristotle did not make ]s in the way that modern scientific theories are expected to.

An '''obsolete scientific theory''' is a ] that was once commonly accepted but (for whatever reason) is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by mainstream ]; or a ] theory which has been shown to be false. This label does not cover theories that are yet to gain wide support in the scientific community (] or ]). This also does not cover theories that were never widely accepted, or theories which were only supported in specific countries because of the imposition of dictatorial regimes (such as ]).

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). ] suggested that all scientific theories should be ] otherwise they could not be tested by experiment. Anything which cannot be shown by experiment to be false would therefore be an ] and have an absolute status, beyond any refutation.

<!-- rough dates when these were accepted and disproven (birth and death) would be appreciated! -->
<!-- categories would be good too. groups of theories seem to be wiped out in a single blow, while others slowly lose favour -->

==Obsolete biology theories==
* ] - but revitalised in ] - see also ]
* ] - obsoleted by ]
* ] (abiogenesis)
* ] - or "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"

==Obsolete chemistry theories==
* ]
* ] - replaced by ] work on oxidation

==Obsolete physics theories==
* ] - discredited by ]
* ] - failed to be detected by the ], made obsolete by ]'s work.
* ] of the atom - assuming the protons and electrons were mixed together in a single mass
* ] - another now-obsolete theory of light propagation.

==Obsolete astronomical and cosmological theories==
* ]/] - obsoleted by ] and ]
* ] - obsoleted by ] and ]

==Obsolete geographical theories==
* ] theory
* The ], an ice-free sea once supposed to surround the ]

==Obsolete medical theories==
* Theory of the ]
* ] - medical history - Some say it transformed into ] and ].

==Obsolete branches of enquiry==
* ], which led to the development of ]
* ], which led to the development of ]
* ], was once widely studied but now considered a ]
* ], as distinct from ], now considered a ]

==Approximate theories==

Here are theories that are no longer considered the most complete representation of ], but are still useful in particular domains. For many theories a more complete model is known, but in practical use the coarser approximation provides good results with much less calculation.

* ] - The ] and ] threaten to destroy this comfortable world picture.
* ] - The possibility of ]s is one of the consequences of ].
* ]s are no longer thought to be indivisible, but are now seen to be ].
* ] disintegrate at ].
* ] theory - This is still used in the coordinate system of ].
* ] - obsoleted by ] and ]. Still useful in ] and physics at either middling (human) scales or where appreciable fractions of the ] need not be considered.
* ] of the atom - Allows for exact solution of the ] atom, but larger atoms are not well described.
* Newton's ] for the ] of a ] on a body - no longer considered useful at low speeds, though it has found application in ]

==Theories whose significance was overstated==
<!-- umm.. awkward title -->

* ]s - Though temporary connections between land masses sometimes allowed migrations (as when sea levels were lowered during ice ages), the actual splitting of continents by ] has been more important.

==See also==
*]
*]
*]
*] - ]
*]
*]

'''Lists'''
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


(Insertion of material is pending.)


] ]

Revision as of 23:53, 2 April 2005

Note: The contents of this page are expected to change as consensus is reached.
History of science
Background
By era
By culture
Natural sciences
Mathematics
Social sciences
Technology
Medicine

(Insertion of material is pending.)

Categories: