|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Redirect-class)|
|WikiProject Anatomy||(Rated Redirect-class)|
Placement of templates
Jfdwolff, mopar or no car ford is gayer than brittney spears I noticed you removed the templates from the article page. All the other collaborations appear to put notices at the tops of the articles they're currently working on. For instance, see Head, Physical science, Second Liberian Civil War, Henry Fonda, Cinema of Canada, Hiroshi Yamauchi, New Town Plaza, History of India, Akita, Akita, Manifold, Glacier, History of South Carolina, Snowy Mountains Scheme. At least for now I'm patterning the Medicine Collaboration like the other ones, so I'm going to replace the template. Does anyone else feel that it is a bad idea? I'm open to removing the image if it is felt that it is too obtrusive. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
- Can't the notice be on the bottom (just like the stub notices and categories)? I think at the top of the article they are a bit too obtrusive... --WS 23:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi, I added some small images next to the different systems, but I am not quite sure if it is an improvement... I thought so when I began to add them, but somehow it doesn't look right. So feel free to add comments here or remove them alltogether if they are too obtrusive. --WS 02:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
- the idea has potential. maybe left float instead of right? PhatRita 11:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The basic sciences?
From the intro paragraph:"...physiology is one of the basic sciences of medical study, along with anatomy, biochemistry, histology, embryology, psychology, and microbiology."
- The list of "basic sciences" seems a bit random to me. Why not add genetics, neurobiology, and cell biology? I think the list can probably be deleted, so the sentence reads: Human physiology is one of the basic sciences of medical study, and as such is most often applied as medical care.
- I feel that someone probably put some thought into that sentence, so I don't want to edit it without putting my idea out there first. Mr.Bip 18:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we want to put "antibodies" on the same level as "white blood cells," "thymus," and "lymph nodes." Antibodies are just proteins produced by the immune system, not a part of the system itself. I'm not much of an immunologist - can anyone propose a re-write? Mr.Bip 19:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
There are lots of potential variable levels of importance. From a clinical standpoint related to human disease this perhaps the most common. Long tradition divides the circulating immune system into antibody-mediated and cell-mediated components. This seems to make them more worthy of equal mention than whether one is a protein and one is a cell. alteripse 23:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
- Alteripse - I don't dispute the clinical importance of antibodies, but when one talks of an organ system, I take that to mean the collection of tissues and organs that comprise that system. It's perfectly valid to discuss the immune system in terms of the humoral or innate response, but I just don't want a casual reader to confuse the different systems for their effector molecules (i.e. antibodies for humoral response, toll-like receptors for innate). For instance, hormones are products of the endocrine system, not a part of the endocrine system itself - likewise, neurotransmitters are not really a "part" of the nervous system, they are just molecules used by the system. If antibodies are a part of the immune system, then so are cytokines, chemokines, and toll-like receptors. I'm sorry if this sounds like an unecessarily subtle point, but I'm a stickler for consistency.
- How about: consists of the cells, biological substances (such as antibodies), and cellular activities that work together to provide resistance to disease. Search google for 'define:immune system' for some other definitions, I think this one is closest to the text mentioned above. --WS 16:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- I changed the entry on the immune system. I think its a pretty fair balance. Mr.Bip 19:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I feel that given the list is of physiological systems, the "skin" dot point should be called "integumentary system".Leon... 22:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Physiology of Combat
Is there a field of "Physiology of Combat", or something like that? Maybe On Combat: The Psychology and Physiology of Deadly Conflict in War and in Peace could be usefull as a startup? - Nabla 20:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm no experienced physiologist (never served in the military, either), but that's a good idea. Make it happen.--Animeronin 09:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
physiology is basically the thinking of the mind. it depends on how somwones doing something. it ususally comed from teh brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 05:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Humans and animals
Depending on context, there are two different ways to distinguish between human beings and "other" animals:
In Biology, I gather that only the physical body is considered; human consciousness and the mind itself are considered to be just as much an aspect of physiology as animal instinct, as in Karl Marx's political theory (everything is "matter in motion"; see Materialism).
I'm wondering how to talk about humans in this context, considering in particular the view that humans are just another species in contrast to the view that mankind is special in some way; perhaps so special as not to be classed with animals but considered to be distinct. What context would that be? And how should we refer to it in Wikipedia articles? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)