Category talk:Obsolete scientific theories
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Obsolete or not?
At the moment Geocentric model is in the Category:Obsolete scientific theories while Bohr atom is not. Both are now commonly held to be ontologically deficient but both are still useful for computation and pedagogy. Surely we should be consistent but which way? Cutler 20:41, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is "Obsolete" a Dismissive Point of View Term?
The definition of Obsolete scientific theories in this category: "...a scientific theory that was once commonly accepted but (for whatever reason) is no longer considered the most complete description of reality by mainstream science; or a falsifiable theory which has been shown to be false" appears to interject an absolute dismissive and "point of view" tone to evolving science theories.
Some theories included in this category have not in fact been shown to be false even though they may not be considered "the most complete description of reality by mainstream science." The evolution of science theory has shown mainstream science to be repeatedly capable of supporting prevailing scientific models which did not stand the test of long-term scrutiny. It is too early to close the door on some theories in this category because the prevailing models used to falsify them have themselves not been proven beyond the reasonable doubt needed to uphold them as absolute and exclusive explanations of the reality that science explores. I note Aether theories and Expanding earth theory as examples of such misappropriation.
There exists a rigorous debate amongst many scientists today who challenge mainstream science's shutting out of viable scientific models in favor of the exclusive adoption of the one prevailing model supported by the mainstream scientific community. The following cosmology statement at this link is but one example of such discontent.
It would indeed behoove the Wikipedia Foundation to categorize scientific theory in a more unbiased fashion rather than appear to lend a priority to mainstream consensus by dismissing scientific theories which remain viable, though perhaps errantly considered to have been falsified. The sciences are an evolving study and there remains much more unknown than proven within the range of the present consensus scientific model. Wikipedia's science theory categories should reflect this evolving reality and not present such an absolute classification of still viable theories as obsolete, as has been done here. MichaelNetzer 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
