Talk:Substance

Theory

After reading about substance theory and bundle theory, it sounds to me as if the "bare particular" is a purely conceptual necessities rather than an actual part of an objects "being". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Hyde~enwiki (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 November 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a little pointless to make links to unnecessary philosophical (read: conjecture-based) articles when the terms are already defined in the Wiktionary. -- Orethrius van Degaurde, 07:06 UTC, 07 May 2005

I'm so impressed: you've got the correct definiton of substance theory! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.248.104 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drug?

Should Drug be listed, reflecting use of 'substance' in, eg, Substance dependence and Substance abuse?
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listing done
Laurel Bush (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me now that in 'substance abuse' 'substance' means 'intoxicant'
Intoxicant redirects to Psychoactive drug
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entries on dab pages aren't based on meaning but on name, or coincidence of name. So it makes sense to have articles which include "substance" in their name but not all that refer to "substance". In the case of psychoactive drug it first refers to 'chemical substance', i.e. the broadest use of the word for a chemical material and already listed, after which is uses just "substance" as a shorthand for this. So I don't think it's needed, but looking at it and a few other articles can see a few more that could be added, including another you mention above.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In current form, the disambiguation page seems to presume and imply, inappropriately to my mind, that all use of a substance as an intoxicant is abuse or unhealthy
Seems to me now two links are needed, for substance used or acting as a performance enhancing drug, and for substance used or acting as a psychoactive drug
Laurel Bush (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is not how disambiguation pages work. The point of disambiguation pages it to help readers find articles with similar name: in this case to disambiguate the ambiguous term "substance", as when they type "substance" into the search box there is no such article. So it is appropriate to include substance abuse and substance dependence as those are both articles a reader could be looking for.

As for whether such is healthy this is not something that can or should be considered in a disambiguation page. Instead readers should read the articles where this is covered, hopefully in a comprehensive and neutral manner. I notice that substance abuse covers both recreational drugs and performance enhancing ones; it does not seem to me too skewed towards one or another. But if it is it should be addressed in the article, not on the disambiguation page.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:35, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the term 'substance' used in 'substance abuse' and 'substance dependence' refers to nothing with significance or importance except as part of such judgemental labels?
Or, perhaps, a substance in a quite generic sense only becomes a substance in the more specific sense of the labels if its use is such as to attract such labels, that 'substance' in 'substance abuse' is substance-of-abuse, and 'substance dependence' is substance-of-dependence dependence?
In current form, the page appears to me to fly in the face of common understanding of 'substance', and to be more baffling than helpful
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel an article title is judgemental then the place to raise it is the article talk page. I can see your concerns but it is often the case that article titles are an imperfect compromise, because e.g. there are two or three possibilities but an article can only have one title. A disambiguation page is not the place to address this; a disambiguation page exists simply to help readers find the right article, and should contain just enough that readers can work out where each link goes.

As for 'substance-of-abuse' the "substance" in substance abuse is simply a chemical substance, one with a biological effect and one which at least some people use for recreational/experimental/performance enhancing purposes, but a chemical substance. And that is already linked. Again, this is not the place to go into the complexity and different meanings and uses of this; there should be just enough to help readers find the page they are looking for.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you JohnBlackburne
Your definition of 'substance' still seems a long way from the generic meaning
Is there anything material which is not a chemical substance, or combination of such substances?
I remember 'Drug substance' as a page line which seemed to make sense, because I believe 'drug substance' is often used in drug R&D to refer to a substance which is potentially a drug or from or on which a drug may be derived or based, and in 'substance abuse', 'substance' looks like it might be an abreviation of 'drug substance', and used to be inclusive of substances which may not be commonly perceived as drugs
It seems, however, ridiculously generic, and baffling, except perhaps if you are at the metaphoric coalface of abuse treatment and policy enforcement
It looks, in other words, like 'expert' healthcare and social policy shorthand, and I think the disambiguation page should at least refer to the 'expert' fields in which the shorthand has developed
(as seems to be the case, effectively with the line about substance theory)
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

still waiting for his answer oof lmao — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:579:820:1B:88D4:D8CD:4547:9A35 (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]