Misplaced Pages

User talk:QuackGuru: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:00, 29 April 2014 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits Thanks for the message.← Previous edit Revision as of 10:59, 4 May 2014 edit undo76.107.171.90 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit →
Line 46: Line 46:
==And another== ==And another==
{{The Steady Rate Barnstar| Tick tock, Tick Tock!{{Break}}All the best, '']&nbsp;]'', <small>02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br />}} {{The Steady Rate Barnstar| Tick tock, Tick Tock!{{Break}}All the best, '']&nbsp;]'', <small>02:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC).</small><br />}}

==]==
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 ]. 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. ] (]) 10:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:59, 4 May 2014

This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuackGuru.

Welcome!

Hello, QuackGuru, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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:

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Quack! Quack! Quack! The image above contains clickable linksFor your useful spot here, which led to a successful SPI, I award you the WikiProject Medicine QuackStar.
Also, good hunting. Alexbrn talk

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 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).


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. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)