Talk:Medical Renaissance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale. |
[edit] Basic outline completed
The basic edition of this article was completed some days ago. I shall add more to this soon but please feel free to relieve me of my role if you have anything you'd like to add. =]
[edit] Keep up the good work
I like your other article and this as well... Maybe say something about the mithridate and their use of theriaca: a tincture containing opium, viper venom, etc. I find it fascinating! --Browneatmidnight (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Where does this come from?
Where does the idea of the "medical Renaissance" come from? The only source from the article that is focused on the concept is an unsourced diagram on a school website. It appears occasionally in historical literature, but as far as I know it usually refers to medicine during the Renaissance or more specifically to the developments in the 16th and maybe 17th centuries. The inclusion of people ranging from Vesalius to Koch makes it pretty ill-defined chronologically. A much more common term, which would probably be a better subject for a Wikipedia article, is "Renaissance medicine".
I'm removing the other Wikipedia articles used as references; these are not appropriate sources.--ragesoss (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you're unable to find anything on the Medical Renaissance, but I assure you it is an integral part of medical history, I'm not going to make it up am I? In the GCSE History course I am currently doing (I'm 14 by the way), we have just literally finished a whole topic on the Medical Renaissance, and in the book I'm holding, The Development of Medicine for OCR GCSE, there is a whole section devoted to it, comprising a notable amount of the book! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that, from what I can tell, scholarly sources have used the term "Medical Renaissance" only occasionally, and then in a sense that seems to be different from what your textbook describes. Certainly, important things happened in medicine during the Renaissance and the following centuries (this is often described as part of the Scientific Revolution), but the question is whether the this is a coherent, well-defined topic or just the idiosyncratic approach used by the authors of your textbook.--ragesoss (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest I think you're trying to draw blood from a stone. The term Medical Renaissance in the sense that I see it, is the period of advancements in medicine from 1500-1750, which is the period I, and subsequently the article, have encompassed. I would like to think that this topic is well-defined and fills in a previously empty hole in Wikipedia, and I certainly don't believe that I am idiosyncratic in my work.
- What I'm saying is that, from what I can tell, scholarly sources have used the term "Medical Renaissance" only occasionally, and then in a sense that seems to be different from what your textbook describes. Certainly, important things happened in medicine during the Renaissance and the following centuries (this is often described as part of the Scientific Revolution), but the question is whether the this is a coherent, well-defined topic or just the idiosyncratic approach used by the authors of your textbook.--ragesoss (talk) 21:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any good reason to change the topic title to anything but the current one. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
