Talk:Medicine

WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article was previously a Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
B checklist
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information:
 
Note icon
This article is within of subsequent release version of Natural sciences.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Taskforce icon
This article is a vital article.
Taskforce icon
This article is one of the core set of articles every encyclopedia should have.



Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 17 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mavluda.alamova96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Medical doctors never important?

I do not find any medical doctors with WikiProject saying higher than importance=low. Pasteur is not important to medicine? Lister is not important to medicine? --Dthomsen8 (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional medicine

"Traditional medicine" isn't medicine at all, and doesn't belong on medical pages of an encyclopedia except as a note saying to look under society & culture. It's called "traditional" because tradition is the only reason any of its ideas persist - i.e. it wouldn't carry the name "traditional" if it worked.


It isn't analogous to folk music (a legitimate but different form of music); it's analogous to folk legal advice - false information given by people who don't know what they're talking about. "Traditional medicine" is a legitimate topic in history or in cultural studies, but it isn't legitimate to give it any space here, except to have a brief placeholder note explaining that it doesn't belong. TooManyFingers

(talk) 17:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TooManyFingers - Agree that the section should be more succinct. Why don't you go ahead with an edit? --Zefr (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe succinctness is the point; I also don't believe that I can edit the section effectively enough. It's a case of "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence", but I don't have confidence in my own ability to defend such a move (i.e. not quite but almost deleting that entire section, leaving only a dismissive comment). TooManyFingers (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propaganda? "Then why don't you just remove the entire section on "History". --154.5.24.90 (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is false information.

This is not true. "As examples, the Supreme Court of India and Indian Medical Association regard traditional medicine practices, such as Ayurveda and Siddha medicine, as quackery.". Propaganda does not belong in an encyclopedia. Was this Taken out of context for malicious reasons? --154.5.24.90 (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compelling evidence dictates that title of Science should be removed from medicine

Science (noun) is a fact of nature. Facts are verifiable. If your fact is not verifiable, then you never had a fact to begin with.

There is no fundamental theory for life (yet). Medicine is hinged on statistics and statistics fail verification.

https://academic.oup.com/bjps/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/bjps/axy051/5071906

A Doctor is still a scholar. He can still execute the scientific method on a patient. He still does science (verb). But medicine is not a Science (noun). Not verifiable (yet).

Even the Royal Statistical Society leaves statistical interpretation outside of Science.

https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2018.01113.x

Aliis exterendum

The Royal Society restrains the premise that Philosophy of Science uses to justify statistics with Nullius in verba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuzamarine (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuzamarine (talk • contribs) 02:46, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles must be based on reliable sources, not Wikipedia. The definition of science is large, but maybe useful would be scientific method and philosophy of science. Wikipedia talk pages are not a forum for general discussion though, the science reference desk may be more appropriate. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:39, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Medicine

Including it as a separate section appears to have some WP:COATRACK issues, as well as some WP:POV issues by indicating that it is part of "the science and practice of the diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, and prevention of disease". I believe it would be appropriate to remove it, and instead allow the reader to follow the links to traditional medicine if they wish to learn more about it. BilledMammal (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]