Talk:List of discredited substances

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is with some mirth I find "Water" "Fire" "Earth" "Air" "Blood" "Phlegm" and "Bile" on a list of discredited substances. What pseudoscience is this? Are the relavant authors suggesting that these substances do not outright exist? Are we somehow plugged into a matrix, a simulacrum of an existence, a mere virtual reality of some sort? Perhaps what was meant is the concept of these substances in a scope of medical or scientific belief systems? In that case then, these substances are far from discredited, however the belief system is discredited under western scientific beliefs, and should by all account be removed from this article. If not, I will have to remember that I am not really drinking a glass of water the next time I do. --Satur9 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing the author probably means Earth, Air, Fire and Water as four of the five basic elements of the Aristotilean Universe, of which all things are made has been discredited (under modern science)... which is why they're listed as (for example) "Water (Classical Element)", not simply "Water" (which are two different things).

Ditto for Blood, Phlegm and Bile -- they're discredited as the four bodily humours (which would explain why "four bodily humours" is wikified, but not "blood" or "bile"). I.e., it is the pseudoscience aspects of those things which has been discredited, and it is those aspects which are noted on the list. --Dr Archeville 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] unencyclopedic

Lists like this need to be very specific on what can get included, and what gets excluded on the list. They also need to spend some time defending how it's a useful list in the introduction. Dstanfor 16:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is certainly not the most pointless list on Wikipedia (as I think you have already discovered), and I believe it is defensible and would not like to see it deleted. I agree that the definition could be tightened up as there are more then one way in which a substance can be discredited and we have a mix of them here. I think it is interesting and worthwhile to draw together strands of mistaken beliefs from a range of sciences and philosophies in one place. We are not just interested in the state of knowledge now but also in the ways in which it has changed in the past. I would like to see a bit more analysis so there is more than just a list here. Unfortunately, I do not feel qualified to do this myself. Even its current state, I think the article is considerably better than nothing. --DanielRigal 17:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but what you're talking about is an article on how the modern state of science has changed as time goes on. That does sound interesting, if hard to write in an encyclopedic way. However, this list is not that article, and a poor start too it. Dstanfor 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me that what DanielRigal is talking about is a list of notable discredited substances (i.e., what the title would suggest), not a full history of science article on substancehood. As for the inclusion criteria, if you would like to suggest improvements, feel free to do so. I note that you haven't actually given a criticism of the criteria, only a statement that it needs to be better. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to go on the record as saying that this article is awesome and I would be very sad if it was deleted. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

i appreciate the historical applications of this article. i would also be saddened by it's deletion. the concepts are of historical importance and are how we got to where we are. rkmlai 07:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is now considerably better than it was when it was tagged as unencyclopedic. I propose that we remove the cleanup and unencyclopedic tags. Does anybody object?