Talk:Superseded theories in science

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)
 * 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
Seems to me that this entry overstates the notion that classical physics has been "superseded" by quantum mechanics and relativity and incorrectly states that it has been "discarded".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
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
This page was moved from "Superseded theories in science" to "Superseded theories in science and results in mathematics" without discussion and flagged as a minor edit.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 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. 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 under See Also section. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)