Talk:Claude Bernard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Magnus opus[edit]

I think it would be good to present a summary of Bernard's magnum opus, -- An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine because it is a classic and says a great deal about the ethics of science and the misuse of science today.--samivel 18:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Review comments[edit]

Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:

  • Template:Infobox Scientist should be added
  • Needs copy editing for grammar in places
  • Lead needs expanding to cover all aspects of the subject's life and research
  • Further organisation of the article would be beneficial; the section on An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine is currently disproportionately long
  • A graphic relating to An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine would be interesting, eg cover of first edition
  • Information on research should be expanded and inline references are important
  • References should be expanded to cover all facts and claims, and should be converted to the inline format
  • External links present which could be used to expand article

Espresso Addict 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Need to double check quotations. Bernard was quoted asserting that "theories are verified hypotheses" when in fact he said "theories are only hypotheses." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no evidence for some quotations. I'm especially interested in proof for the quotations on the "milieu interieur".

Cupinfurs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC).

Brothers Karamazov[edit]

Reading this has sparked a memory. Is this the "Bernard" who's name in the trouble mind of Demitri Karamazov becomes a shorthand for all those who he holds in contempt for their rationalistic, materialistic, godless and dishonerable "european" mindsets. Thus on a number of occasions, and to general incomprehension, he is heard to bitterly accuse his accusers of being nothing but "Bernards".

A quick google suggest it is, "...Claude Bernard. What was he? Chemist or what?"

"He must be a savant," answered Alyosha; "but I confess I can't tell you much about him, either. I've heard of him as a savant, but what sort I don't know."

"Well, damn him, then! I don't know either," swore Mitya. "A scoundrel of some sort, most likely. They are all scoundrels. And Rakitin will make his way. Rakitin will get on anywhere; he is another Bernard. Ugh, these Bernards! They are all over the place."

Maybe not directly relevant; but surley having a minor part in one of the greats of world literature is worth a mention. It also illustates the general renown of Bernard, as Dostoyevsky seems to expect the reader to know who he is.

I'll put a mention of it on the page if no one objects. And if I can be bothered

Passerby (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


The references need to be fixed so that every reference refers to a specific work rather than just a page number. Otherwise if the 3rd reference is ever removed or replaced, all the other references will become meaningless. Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)