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 71.8.217.15 (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 77.102.27.103 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

References[edit]

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)