Talk:List of discredited substances

Other than a few of the concepts originally devised to describe the physics of the universe, such as aether, phlogistan, etc. the majority of the discredited substances are merely those which have yet to be discovered or are largely believed but not proven to not exist. It is possible that one day there will be an elixir of life or a philosophers stone. The possibility of transmuting elements is not prohibited by the current laws of physics. This article is a useless list of things which don't exist. We might as well add every body part of each mythical creature to the list. I suggest we delete this list, it is not welcome in an encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lylegordon (talk • contribs) 00:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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?

Add Holy Water?

I'm just sayin' :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyhawker666 (talk • contribs) 07:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean but it isn't discredited in the sense that we mean here. Holy water exists and it is indisputably water. Its holiness is a subjective religious belief and not subject to being scientifically discredited. Having said that, if you can show that widespread claims for the physical properties of holy water were made which have been discredited (and preferably repudiated by the Catholic Church) then that might get it in on the second criteria. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Water exists. Holiness is left up to dispute. Whereas something like souls or soul substance might work.Tat (talk) 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Really two or three different things in this list

Some of these (orgone, Odic force) are from theories that were always-fringe-at-best; others (luminiferous aether, miasma) were once widely accepted by the legitimate science of the time; others (alicorn, classical elements) are prescientific. I'd suggest this list should really be limited to things that were at least compatible with the best science (or proto-science) of their time (even if not widely accepted), and later discredited; things like orgone, that were never really 'credited' in the first place, really ought to be on List of substances proposed by pseudoscience or some such article. 165.91.174.81 (talk)

On further thought, it might also be a good idea to divide this article into substances whose existence is discredited, and those (the classical elements and four humors) whose existence is accepted but whose nature as fundamentals is discredited. The alchemical versions of salt, sulphur and mercury should also be on the latter lsit. 165.91.174.81 (talk) 07:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Erototoxins

• The Erototoxins of Judith Reisman - Addictive chemicals allegedly produced in the brain by pornography. There are addictive opioids (i.e. endorphins) in the brain related to pleasure in general, but not specific to pornography.

It seems like no one in science has taken the time to "discredit" this one either. List of substances proposed by pseudoscience seems like a good idea. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. If we go by https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=erototoxin and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=erotoxin , no scientist has ever cared about proving or disproving the existence of erototoxins. The only scientific source I have found on Google about erototoxins is [1]. Reisman defined erototoxins as a polydrug, consisting of known substances which are naturally occurring inside the brain. But the specifics are so vague that the term is scientifically meaningless. Disproving the existence of erototoxins is like demanding scientific proof of the nonexistence of elves and fairies. Seen Talk:Judith Reisman/Archive 2#PubMed, the erototoxins never amounted to anything else than fringe, pseudoscientific propaganda against smut. If the politicians who allowed Reisman to testify on erototoxins upon Capitol Hill really believed that these were real science, they were either misinformed or deluded. No researcher came to her help: neither homeopaths, nor Anthroposophic MDs, nor quackademics, nobody, the word erototoxin is not even mentioned on PubMed (either critically or approvingly). Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Basically, acupuncture and homeopathy are bunk, but these can be researched. Erototoxins are much more bunk, i.e. these cannot even be researched. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And the very few mentions of "erotoxin" at JSTOR and EBSCO are in fact OCR-errors (misspelled "crotoxin", "miserotoxin", "enterotoxin") or figurative language (which does not denote a real chemical substance). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Aether

Was in fact discredited by the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was later explained by general relativity. Aether was the substance of space and therefore contradicts Lorentz invariance. Is anyone watching this page and if so, do you agree to update it? Alma (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC) Edited: I noticed that the page actually introduces it as luminiferous aether, but at any rate the page of Aether linked to the first element is mentioning the Michelson-Morley experiment specifically, which is certainly not part of atomic theory. Presenting them as different elements is misleading since one is a version (mostly linguistic but not principial) of the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Almaionescu (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)