Science fills us all with great wonder and it has done so for generations, but there have been an incredible number of “scientific discoveries” which were later found to be completely false. This list looks at ten of the more fascinating cases of scientific falsehoods from history.
“Rain Follows the Plow” is the name given to a climatology concept which is now completely debunked. The theory said that human settlement caused a permanent increase in rainfall – thus enabling man to move to areas previously considered arid. It is this 19th century theory that brought about the settlement of the Great Plains (previously known as the Great American Desert), and parts of South Australia. The theory was eventually refuted by climatologists, and in the settled areas of South Australia, drought brought an end to the attempted settlements.
This strange theory has a relatively normal name, but rest assured, the concept is far from it. Hans Hörbiger (pictured above), an Austrian engineer and inventor received a vision in 1894 which told him that ice was the substance of all basic substances and had created the ice moons, ice planets, and a “global ether”. He said “I knew that Newton had been wrong and that the sun’s gravitational pull ceases to exist at three times the distance of Neptune[.]” Unbelievably this theory got a great deal of support. One of the strongest supporters of the concept was Houston Stewart Chamberlain (British born posthumous son-in-law of composer Richard Wagner) who went on to become one of the leading theorists behind the development of the Nazi Party in Germany.
Alchemy has its roots (in the Western world) in Ancient Egypt where it combined with metallurgy in a form of early science. The Egyptian alchemists discovered the formulas for making mortar, glass, and cosmetics. From Egypt it eventually spread to the rest of the Ancient world and led to modern alchemy in which men would try to turn metals into gold, to conjure up genies, and perform all manner of bizarre not-so-science-like activities. While it has contributed in some ways to modern science, the discipline of true science caused the death of alchemy which could not stand up to the rigorous testing of its pseudoscience.
From the 16th century, European experts in geography were convinced that California was an island separate from the North American mainland. Maps of the time show a large island on the left of the land mass and California continued to appear this way even into the 18th century. There was at the time also a rumor that California was an earthly paradise like the Garden of Eden or Atlantis. A romance novel from 1510 describes it thus:
Know, that on the right hand of the Indies there is an island called California very close to the side of the Terrestrial Paradise; and it is peopled by black women, without any man among them, for they live in the manner of Amazons. – Las Sergas de Esplandián by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo
The matter was finally put to rest indisputably on the 1774-1776 expeditions of Juan Bautista de Anza. Interestingly, it is likely that within 25 million years, Baja California and part of Southern California really will separate from North America due to tectonic plate movement.
Geocentricity is the concept which states that the earth is the center of the Universe and that all other objects move around it. The view was universally embraced in Ancient Greece and very similar ideas were held in Ancient China. The idea was supported by the fact that the sun, stars, and planets appear to revolve around Earth, and the physical perception that the Earth is stable and not moving. This was combined with the belief that the earth was a sphere; belief in a flat earth was well gone by the 3rd century BC. The geocentric model was eventually displaced with the work of of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler in the 16th Century.
In classical antiquity right up to modern times, it was believed that the body contained four humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. It was believed that the right balance of these four humors made a person healthy but an excess or decrease in any one of these would cause illness. Because of this belief, treatments of sickness would include bloodletting, purges, and emetics. Occasionally a mixture of herbs would be used to restore the balance. The humors were also applied to foods – for example wine was choleric (yellow bile). This classification still exists today to some extent, as we refer to some foods as “hot” and others as “dry”. The concept of humors was not replaced until 1858 when Rudolf Virchow published theories of cellular pathology.
Vitalism states that the functions of living things are controlled by a “vital force” and not biophysical means. Vitalism has a long history in medical philosophies – and it has ties to the four humors. It is sometimes referred to as a “life spark” and even as the soul. In the Eastern traditions it is essentially the same thing as “qi” or “chi”, which is heavily tied in to oriental medicinal methods. The concept is (as can be expected) completely rejected by most mainstream scientists. In 1967, Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, stated “And so to those of you who may be vitalists I would make this prophecy: what everyone believed yesterday, and you believe today, only cranks will believe tomorrow.”
Maternal Impression is an old belief that a mother’s thoughts while pregnant can impart special characteristics on the child in her womb. For many years this idea was used to explain congenital disorders and birth defects. Maternal Impression was used to explain the disorder suffered by the Elephant Man: it was suggested that his mother was frightened by an elephant while she was pregnant with him – thereby imprinting the memory of an elephant on her child. Depression was also explained in this manner. If a mother had moments of strong sadness during pregnancy, it was believed that her child would ultimately suffer from depression in later life. Genetic theory caused the almost complete eradication of this belief in the 20th century.
The theory of phlogiston dates to 1667 when Johann Joachim Becher (a German physicist) suggested that there was a fifth element (phlogiston) to go with the four classical elements (Earth, Water, Air, Fire) which was contained within objects that could burn. It was believed that when an object burned, it released its phlogiston (an element without taste, mass, odor or color) and left behind a powdery substance called calx (what we now know to be oxide). Objects that burned in air were considered to be rich in phlogiston and the fact that a fire burned out when oxygen was removed was seen as proof that oxygen could only absorb a limited amount of the substance. This theory also led to the idea that the human need to breathe had a sole function which was to remove phlogiston from the body. The entire concept was superseded by Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier’s discovery that combustion could only occur with the help of a gas such as oxygen.
Before microscopes and theories of cells and germs, man had other ideas about the creation of living things. He bizarrely believed that life arose from inanimate matter (for example, maggots come spontaneously from rotting meat). Proponents of this view (virtually everyone) used the Bible as a source of evidence, due to the fact that God made man from dust. However, the view did exist before Christianity and Aristotle said, in no uncertain terms, that some animals grow spontaneously and not from other animals of their kind. Earlier believers had to come up with some pretty strange ideas to make their theory work: Anaximander (a Greek philosopher who taught Pythagoras) believed that at some point in man’s history, humans had been born from the soil spontaneously in adult form, otherwise they could never have survived. Before we laugh too hard at the ancients, we should note that many Scientists right up to the 19th century believed this, and some even wrote recipe books for making animals. One such recipe (to make a scorpion) calls for basil, placed between two bricks and left in sunlight. The theory was not finally put to rest until 1859, when Louis Pasteur proved it wrong once and for all.
Contributor: JFrater






























I'll say it jfrater, i agree with Dev, and i'd say its been debunked. Just dont ask any scientists under Gore's payroll.
Yes, global warming is a conspiracy led by Al Gore, he’s paying scientists to come up with fake results.
I thought maybe if you read it you’d realize how stupid you sound.
Lol Global warming is a con and Al Gore has already been criticized for “*****ing” up data!
Add this to the falsifying of data supplied to the UN and numerous quotes from leading Scientists saying it does not pay to stand up against Global Warming, along with the 17,000 signatures of a petition circulated via the Oregan Institute of Science and Medicine saying there is no conclusive proof of Global warming created by man made activities.
I would think twice before using Al Gore as a defense
Wow, great list. The only one i already knew of was the four humors.
wow interesting! didn’t know most of these
I have to say that I didn’t know most of them when I started researching the list either!
I think you can add Global Warming to that list also…soon to be debunked if not already…
Take care
Rubbish list apart from childern are impressionised in the womb. True, dont know if it is thoughts, outside stimulie or whatever but this one cant be disregarded,
Dev – it would cause a scandal if I said I agree with you – so I won’t
Interesting list, but how many of these were “scientific” in the way that we would understand the word, and how many would better be called “philosophical” (for the want of a better word)?
(“Posthumous son-in-law” sounds a bit strange!)
BTW, I have been to the site in photo #10. My family used to live in the town closest to that.
If I weigh into the Global Warming side-discussion I am going to get very angry, so I won’t.
astraya: he was a posthumous son-in-law because Wagner was dead when the guy married his daughter
As for how many were science – “scientia” means knowledge – so all of them are by the broad definition of the word.
Rascalian: thanks
very good list. the whole nature of science is that observations (knowledge) accumulate over time and shape our view of reality. NOTHING is ever proven, merely found NOT to be supported by further observation: dis-proven. all “facts” are open to review, but the collateral evidence tends to support some theories over others.
happy inauguration day to the USA! hope it’s good for the whole globe
rock on listverse
Im glad u mentioned god in #1…
but he should have got an special place just for him, he is so debunked.
Shouldn’t creationism be here somewhere? Lol.
God shouldn't be on the list because it was never scientific. Just pure stupidity and blind deluded idiots.
I think many aspects of creationism address phenomenon better than those presented by contemporary scientists
It turns out, maternal impression may be revived. Studies have shown that the emotional and physical state of the mother during certain periods of pregnancy can trigger the turning on or off of genes in the child. The study is called epigenetics.
look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Transgenerational_epigenetic_observations
Regarding number one: I have vague recollections of an ancient Greek philosopher believing that frogs came from mud.
And there was something about barnacle geese coming from driftwood.
9. astraya-
i SO agree about leaving “the Global Warming side-discussion” to the side, or “I am going to get very angry”! complete agreement here.
let’s have this list live in theories of the past. if someone wants to make a “currently controversial science” list (could be SO fun
) and give it to jfrater, power to them, and let’s have a comment storm over there, then.
Without a doubt, religion should be in the number one spot on this list. It truly has been debunked and is only followed by those with minds that are easily manipulated. It’s about time people stopped taking religious practitioners seriously. Why should they be allowed to have any influence on political issues, or any other issues affecting the mainstream population?
Many priests are among the most educated people in the world, a lot of scientific and philosophy discoveries have come from priests, and religion is extremely succesful everywhere. Even most of the examples usually given about religion stopping the progress of science have more to do with “the religious people” (a.k.a the sciencists of the time) refusing to abandon a previous scientific model done by another thinker, such as Aristotle.
Moreover, I would said that due to blind and pseudoreligious humanism and their fondness on Darwin, Lamarckism has been totally banned from science for a whole century and only recently we have started to see supporting papers. There’s something in the Bible about seeing the straw in the eyes of others and not seeing the beam on ours, but I presume there’s nothing of value in the Bible for you.
Religion cannot be debunked as it is not a scientific theory. There’s nothing to measure, observe or conclude.
WHAT! THE WORLD ISN’T FLAT?!
Yeah, the world is not flat , and its also not round
Religion is not a science. Or at least it’s not by my understanding of the word. It might be by Jamie’s. Creationism isn’t a science, either.
Jamie: you didn’t mention anything about ‘scientia in the broad definition of the word’ in your introduction, so I understood “science” in the modern meaning. I’m sure an actual scientist like Anon will be able to explain ‘scientific method’ far better than a classical muso English teacher like I can, but it has to do with repeated, repeatable, verified, verifiable observations, hypotheses, experiments and not manipulating the results to fit with a previously-held theory (eg geocentricism).
Can any scientist here create a list of “ancient scientific beliefs that were discovered surprisingly early and which have stood the test of time”?
Geocentricity:
The ancient Greek did NOT believe in geocentricity. Check it
What about the theory of the ‘travelling womb’ to explain hysteria in women?
Astraya: accepted – religion is not science, but as creationism and the reference to a god were brought up by other commenter’s, I thought I’d add my bit. I wonder what other readers think…
19. astraya -
here is a very nice, basic diagram of “the scientific method” -yes, it’s an actual process, a way of thinking (astraya, i KNOW you know this, so no offense at all, please. perhaps others -lacking a real science education here in the states??- do not
)
what is the scientific method?
designed for kids doing science-fair projects. basic, but accurate.
(hey, i’m a botanist too, like anon. though a newer presence here at LV)
crap, the link didn’t work, try this:
http://tinyurl.com/4j8jwj
where science ends, religion begins.
I believe that to call religious practitioners “easily manipulated” is out and out, rude. Were the scientists that believed in the theories we laugh at today just “easily manipulated”?
That said, I don’t think spontaneous generation is really even dead. It’s just been fluffed up and repackaged as molecules to man evolution. Isn’t it the same principle? Life form in-animate matter?
Also interesting that the spontaneous generation of the day was debunked by the law of biogenesis which states that life can only come from life. Molecules to man evolution has still to “debunk” that scientific fact but I’m sure the effort will go on.
Jfrater, always with your subtled comdemnations against science and atheism, and of course the apologetic nature of your religious comments. First off, Alchemy was never a science, second, the beauty of science is that it keeps building on prior knowledge, with the help of knew thechnologies, while erroneous articles are then removed.
Well what about Maxwell’s and Einstein’s theory about light?
)
According to Maxwell light is waves, according to Einstein light is particles. Almost everyone believed Maxwell untill it was proved that Einstein was right
was it not proved that they are BOTH RIGHT???
Stizzy: I don’t see calling religious practitioners “easily manipulated” as being rude – it’s just my personal opinion. I’m sure many of those practitioners have their own views, probably quite strong views in many cases. The main point I am making is that they should not have any influence on others around them.
I was going to be highly upset if Spontaneous generation wasn’t on this list, that one is very obvious.
Fodland: Doesn’t quantum physics now say that light can be both a wave and a particle? I forget the technicalities of it but I think that’s the accepted theory now.
Just because it’s your personal opinion, doesn’t make it any less rude. There are easily manipulated people in all walks of life, yet you paint all people who believe in a deity with the same brush. And if all these people are just “easily manipulated” you need not worry about them influencing those around them, because surely they’ll only influence the easily manipulated right?
19. astraya -
p.s. your definition of science is spot-on,
“it has to do with repeated, repeatable, verified, verifiable observations, hypotheses, experiments and not manipulating the results to fit with a previously-held theory (eg geocentricism).”
so no knocking yourself for being “a classical muso English teacher”! whatever country you reside in, and whatever discipline you teach now, is very lucky to have you
Stizzy: Ahh, but they do influence those around them. How many countries laws are guided by religious goals; how many times does the Church of England get involved in political issues; how many times does the Vatican get involved in non-religious issues; how many Americans try to use their religious influence in everything from selecting their politicians to what their children are taught in schools?
Lol, someone in my sister’s year 11 geography class genuinely thought the Earth was flat, just like on a map. She also thought Rainbows were a source of renuable energy and Hawaii was next to Bali.
Good list. I like the science type ones…
what about phrenology. People used to believe the shape of your head determines all of your characteristics and what jobs you should do.
That chick from The View Sherry Shephard said she thought the world was flat just recently. Hilarious!
Oh, and global warming hysteria will soon go the way of global cooling.
But see your starting assumption is that all their influence is negative. Countries laws are guided by religious principles, are all these principles bad? People have imposed their own suppositions on top of them, but when you get to the core, are they such a hazzardous influence? Many of the positive principles we take for granted today were founded on said “religious” principles”.
As the Church of ENGLAND, should it not have something to say about political matters? Should the Vatican, within an increasingly non-religious world, stay silent or contribute thought? Does an American parent not have the right to raise up their child with knowledge of God?
It is true that many people have used their influence for selfish and greedy reasons. They put their own wrappings on top of the core fruit of those foundational principles. But should we be so hasty as to throw out the baby with the bathwater? The church has become an institution, but is this the fault of Jesus / God or people?
I once heard of a bumper sticker slogan that said “God, save me from your followers” Sadly, many can relate to this, even those within this circle of “followers”. People are pricks end of the day, and they will prickify everything they can. But when you get back to the core of the issue, you find something positive which has profoundly affected the world.
they are not 'religious' principles. They are just principles. Everybody has them, religious or not.
and most reliogious people are not moral because they are so blinded by there delusions. proof is in the hundreds of kiddy fiddler priest and there "religious" principles.
If you think everyone has principles, you haven’t set a foot on Africa, have you? If you have those principles, it’s because the religious influence you despise. You are likely to be spanish, because the distinctive idiocy and the self-righteousness of your post, am I wrong?
Although Isaac Newton is known as one of histories greatest scientists the vast majority of his work was alchemy. in fact after his death his body was found to contain large amounts of mercury due to these pursuits. He also wrote a number of religious texts in his later life.
I would say that astrology belongs on this list but so many people still believe that bunk…
BTW, greetings from America only 2 hours and 38 minutes until our long national nightmare is over!!!!!
God and religion should be number one?? lol @ the smug little atheists
Spontaneous generation was the example used to teach us the scientific method when I was in… fourth grade, maybe? I remember thinking at the time that while the theory technically made sense, it was so easily disproven it seemed highly unlikely that no one prior to the 19th had noticed. As for calling the Theory of Evolution Spontaneous Generation 2.0, that’s just silly.
As I have said to so many people: “Global warming and global cooling are natural processes.” However, I do agree that it should be given it’s own spot on a different list.
Religion, on the other hand, is a horrible contrivance. It is a science too. It involves the science of Sociology and Psychology, and is used as a means of socio-economic control. This is why church leaders always hold the ears of those in power. It isn’t because those in power are believers, but because they recognize and respect the influence of those religious leaders. The obvious exception being in Muslim countries.
So, I do support religion being an honorable mention, if for no other reason than that it uses science to accomplish its unstated goals. If you doubt this, just ask yourself: Why does the Vatican hold a non-voting seat in the UN? Why do Evangelists have political backing and power? Why do huge churches wield any power in government?
The Roman Catholic church paved the way for the merging of the power of church and state. All any of them have done in recent years is change their methods, and gone about their tasks much more quietly as the population becomes more intolerant of the knowledge of such manipulation and control.
People follow religion because the message is stated clearly and is easily understood by the uneducated, and also because following the message has good results that anybody can see. That’s why people kept following it for thousands of years. Compare it with communism, which is supposedly heaven, yet as an ideology it has killed one-hundred million people in a record time, impossible to find anything worse than that. In socialist/communist societies people FLEE like rats, and they had to build freaking walls to keep the population trapped in there. Religion was forbidden in all these societies, do you still think religion was the root of the problem, or rather the lack of it?
I have one thought on the matter of Global warming.
Scenario if global warming is real-We will have to stop using fossil fuels and start using other sources of energy.
Scenario if Global warming isn’t real-Fossil fuels run out and we have to use different source of energy.
Either way we are going to have to change what fuel we use.
Was it just me or did the site go down for a while?
Good list by the way
If the four humors don’t exist, how do you explain that stuff that comes up in the back of my throat every time the ShamWow guy appears?
On global warming, of course it is real. Everyone believes that about 12000 years ago there was an ice age that covered a much greater area with ice than it currently does. That is to say the Earth warmed up. It has been warming up for thousands of years and will probably continue, until at some point it will start to cool and return to another ice age. It has happened several times before and it will happen again.
Now, is man responsible for it…no! Gore is just making a ton of money as are these other Chicken Littles and they aren’t going to shut up about it as long as the money flows.
By the way jfrater, great site! I loved the books of lists when I was younger, I own at least 3 (don’t know if there’s more than that). Found your site about a week ago and have been having a ball catching up.
Duufnick I like the way you think. My friends all think I’m crazy when I tell them that it’s a load of bunk.
blitz, I realize that “where science ends, religion begins” is a common saying, but I hope you also realize that it is a huge logical fallacy.
It is not logical to say, for example, “science can’t currently explain to my satisfaction why black holes exist, therefore ALIENS!!! And ghosts!!”
preach the good word Duffnick.
Rain follows the plow…. as a resident of South Australia, I can tell you it is indeed completely debunked. There’s many ghost towns north of the Goyder line that testify to that.
jamie I just sent you an email about registration troubles..I’m telling you here so you know it’s me and not some fake Callie.
This was an informative list..I didn’t know most of these.
I just spewed yellow and black bile after reading comment #40
Does it need to be fresh basil?
I have to take issue with this list, in that very few of these beliefs were actually the product of SCIENCE per se; that is to say, they were either not concepts developed by actual scientists (such as the World Ice Theory) with knowledge of the fields that were pertinent to each question, but rather the invention of lay people and such—or they were simply NOT products of the scientific method, in that they were not verified by observation and experiment, nor was evidence built under them to support them without bias or dogmatic influence.
I’d also take issue with #6, Jamie, where you state that “…the view” (that the earthw as the center of the universe) “was universally embraced in Ancient Greece”. No it most certainly was NOT. Aristarchus was just one–and not the only one–of the ancient Greek philosopher/scientists who believed otherwise–that the earth moved around the sun, and that the sun was in fact an immense ball of burning gas. Other Greeks, its true, stood against this idea, and of course for a time they won out. But at any event, the view was certainly not “universally” embraced. The dissent of many learned Greeks is what laid the groundwork for Copernicus and Kepler, much later.
JFrater: I wish you reconsidered Alchemy a little. First of all Alchemy is not a science, except as for a set of practices which were the basis for modern chemistry. But that’s not the core of Alchemy. Alchemy is essentially a philosophy, and a set of practices whose ultimate goal was not physical Transmutation (“turning whatever into gold”), but rather discovering spiritual truths represented by Transmutation: the capacity of the human being to transcend physicality and reach ultimate wisdom and spiritual immortality.
Of course science will say that all this is rubbish, but that doesn’t mean that it has been debunked by science. It just means that Alchemy, like religion and philosophy, transcends the realm of Science and works on a higher realm where Science still hasn’t been able to even glimpse.
Maternal Impression is just another way for men to label women for anything that might be wrong with the baby. What a load of horse*****! That’s kind of like if I keep thinking that I am going to have a child that will be a genius with no side affects while I’m pregnant means I will get that? Like pre-ordering a kid through a catalog! (although that might be fun!) How someone thinks doesn’t affect the baby inside….if that is true than my kid would have been an axe murder by now! I had a horrible pregnancy and I had nasty thoughts about everything because I was so sick and in pain for 5 months. Needless to say the kid is wholesome and sound and is a great student! So take that, Maternal Impression!
btw…love this list…it was fun to see what people will swallow! (agree with the global warming being bunk!)
To be honest, I’ve never heard of “maternal impression” as a theory, but I was afraid when I was pregnant that my moods might affect the baby. Or that maybe if I enjoyed some peach skoal my baby would end up a bedwetter until she was thirteen.
“This is when science didn’t have to have any specific purpose.”
Even though I am a great believer in science and a skeptic, part of me can’t help but be a little disappointed that “science” isn’t practiced so loosely and creatively as it once was. Spontaneous generation? World Ice Theory? I could have come up with that! To think, I could have been a scientific genius in the 18th century! Either that, or be burned as a witch.
Actually, probably the latter now that I think of it…I’m a single, mouthy woman covered in moles. I wouldn’t have stood a chance.