Talk:Ignaz Semmelweis

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon bioDNA.svg

This Biology related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.



This was originally written for CP, then rescued before the "Night of Blunt Knives".DocSock 14:30, 24 May 2007 (CDT)

Why on Earth would they object to this? Don't tell me they've given up on germ theory for "Intelligent Sickness", or something.... (Nope, this exact article is there. Not even any slams at the Dogmatic Cultist Scientists who LAUGHED at his theories, oddly enough.) --Gulik 21:58, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
This was my "article of the day" to read... (self-improvement drive, lol) I thought it was really great, well written, understandable (even for me, lol) :p Good thing you rescued it from CP. Can you imagine what it must have been like back then, not even knowing that germs caused illness, and having to experiment and have people disbelieve you? geez... Refugeetalk page 05:45, 8 October 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, you made my day! Unfortunately his example is often used in the Galileo fallacy. 11:18, 8 October 2007 (EDT)


So, this was originally on CP, then ported here. why is it still here? The only bit worth keeping is the Semmelweis gambit, and that could go in the Galileo gambit article. SophieWilderModerator 12:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. :-) This article was originally written by PalMD (aka DocSoc) who was one of the original dozen or so members of RW (respect given for that) and is a physician in real life, so he knows this subject. This page has also been looked at and "touched" by several other long-term well known editors of Rationalwiki in the years it's been here, and I don't recall anyone ever objecting to it in part or whole. It's an important subject, and I personally found this article fascinating. It was the first I learned of Semmelweis, and it led to me searching out and reading more about the history of modern medicine, so for me it was a "gateway" article to increasing my knowledge. So for at least one person (me) it's been valuable. So I think there is cause for it to stay. Off-mission? Why? What could there be to object to in this page? What is it hurting anyone to leave this article here? Refugeetalk page 01:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Here we have a significant historical example of the damage anti-science can do. If that isn't on mission, what is? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Sprocket J. Cogswell. I think I love you. :-) Refugeetalk page 02:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nay, nay, Refugee, you are the far more worthy one here, having pointed out this article's roster of distinguished contributors, and its primary authorship by one of the founding lights of RW. I humbly bow in the face of your awesomeness. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
heee... he called me awesome. :p I like it! :-D Refugeetalk page 08:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see someone remove that "off mission" tag though... Refugeetalk page 08:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with content[edit]

According to this a lot of the ommon wisdom about the guy is probably false.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs