Talk:Medical Renaissance

Article review by Eptalon

Hello, I'll add a few words about the article here

• It would perhaps make sense to point out that this article is about medicine during the time of the Renaissance (14th -17th century) in Europe. Medicine in other parts of the world was different, as it still is today (e.g Traditional Chinese medicine, Medicine on the Indian subcontinent). Note also that the very first universities were the Medical School of Salerno (1057), and Bologna ((Canonical law) 1088).
• Even before the Renaissance, scientists studied the body, and treated its diseases. In the Middle Ages, the commonly accepted way how diseases worked was that of four humors (article at en) . Alternatively, god/the gods punished people for their wrongdoings/sins by diseases (most notably: the Plague)
• Please link Harvey, he is important; by the same token, why not mention Girolamo Fracastoro, who was the first to say that epidemics could be caused by tiny particles, or spores (no, not the current meaning) that circulated through the air (1546); during the 1500s Paracelsus discovered that diseases could be caused by agents outside the body, such as bacteria; see en:Medieval_medicine#Later developments for more ideas on what to add. Might also link to Germ theory of disease at some point.
• Again please link people's names the first time they occur: Anton van Leeuwenhoek, Robert Hooke, amongst others.
• One scientist said... -> Name the scientist?

These are just general comments; I am perhaps a little too critical, will help extend the article.

O no, not critical! they are very helpful indeed; I just hope we can fulfil the suggestions. Okay, I'll see what I can do to follow these kind tips..Classical Esther 10:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Lack of adequate sources

The articles suffers from a lack of real direction, and does not make use of the very extensive literature on the history of medicine. You cannot say "these are the issues which historians of medicine have identified as most important" because you (collectively) haven't looked at the sources. Someone should look at (for instance): W.F. Bynum and Roy Porter (eds) 1993. Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine Volume 1 and 2 (ISBN: 0415164192 / 0-415-16419-2) or Roy Porter 1997. Medicine: a history of healing - ancient traditions to modern practice. Ivy Press. or Roy Porter 1993. Blood and Guts: a short history of medicine Norton. (ISBN: 0393037622 / 0-393-03762-2) It's not good enough on a subject like this to rely on web refs and whatever bounces off your cerebral cortex.

PS I see the enWP article is not much good either, and suffers from the same kind of problems. However, there is some stuff there you might adapt. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're certainly right! Thank you very much for your comments. Could you please add some of your helpful references, which this article sadly needs? Thank you! Classical Esther 12:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

End of Renaissance ~1600

Unless the word is used in another sense, the Renaissance ended about 1600. Work of Harvey was the start of the modern period. The Renaissance was literally the rebirth of ancient culture sparked by the rediscovery of ancient manuscripts and spread by early printing. The modern era starts when men begin to trust their own observations and experiments above the words of the ancients. That is why Harvey belongs to the modern world.

Surprisingly, some of Hippocrates' ideas were not rediscovered until much later. He knew the brain was the seat of thought, but no-one knew it in the Renaissance. As for practical medicine, with their heads full of nonsense, it's surprising they did so well. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)