Thanks for the message. |
76.107.171.90 (talk) No edit summary |
||
Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
==And another== |
==And another== |
||
{{The Steady Rate Barnstar| Tick tock, Tick Tock!{{Break}}All the best, ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br />}} |
{{The Steady Rate Barnstar| Tick tock, Tick Tock!{{Break}}All the best, ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'', <small>02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br />}} |
||
==[[User:Mallexikon|Mallexikon]]== |
|||
Hey QuackGuru, Mallexikon has inserted the claim that traditional Chinese medicine is a “pre-science” into the article, and he has piped “pre-science” to [[Protoscience]]. I read over the source he has provided, and I don’t think it supports his claim at all. For example, the author writes: |
|||
“I would argue that this is actually a reason to be suspicious of TCM, for it derives from a pre-scientific largely superstition-based culture, similar in this way to the pre-scientific Western culture that produced the humoral (Galenic) theory of biology.” |
|||
“Pre-scientific doctors thought, for example, that pus was a good thing, a sign that a wound was healing.” |
|||
“TCM is a pre-scientific superstitious view of biology and illness, similar to the humoral theory of Galen, or the notions of any pre-scientific culture. It is strange and unscientific to treat TCM as anything else.” |
|||
The author does not appear to be using the expression “pre-science” to refer to a underdeveloped science. He seems to be using the expression “pre-science” to refer to magical thinking. Would you mind looking over the source? I would appreciate a second opinion on the matter. [[Special:Contributions/76.107.171.90|76.107.171.90]] ([[User talk:76.107.171.90|talk]]) 10:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 10:59, 4 May 2014
Welcome!
Hello, QuackGuru, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
- Getting Started
- Introduction to Wikipedia
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
An award for you!
The WikiProject Medicine QuackStar
|
A barnstar for you!
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For putting up with baseless attacks against you. Briefly looked at the "evidence" of poor editing by you and didn't find any [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC) |
And another
The Steady Rate Barnstar | ||
Tick tock, Tick Tock! All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC). |
Hey QuackGuru, Mallexikon has inserted the claim that traditional Chinese medicine is a “pre-science” into the article, and he has piped “pre-science” to Protoscience. I read over the source he has provided, and I don’t think it supports his claim at all. For example, the author writes:
“I would argue that this is actually a reason to be suspicious of TCM, for it derives from a pre-scientific largely superstition-based culture, similar in this way to the pre-scientific Western culture that produced the humoral (Galenic) theory of biology.”
“Pre-scientific doctors thought, for example, that pus was a good thing, a sign that a wound was healing.”
“TCM is a pre-scientific superstitious view of biology and illness, similar to the humoral theory of Galen, or the notions of any pre-scientific culture. It is strange and unscientific to treat TCM as anything else.”
The author does not appear to be using the expression “pre-science” to refer to a underdeveloped science. He seems to be using the expression “pre-science” to refer to magical thinking. Would you mind looking over the source? I would appreciate a second opinion on the matter. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)