Talk:Doctrine of signatures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconA member of the Guild of Copy Editors reviewed a version of this article for copy editing. However, a major copy edit was inappropriate at that time because of the issues specified below, or the other tags now found on this article. Once these issues have been addressed, and any related tags have been cleared, please tag the article once again for {{copyedit}}. The Guild welcomes all editors with a good grasp of English. Visit our project page if you are interested in joining!

Homeopathy section[edit]


This section currently doesn't seem to have much to do with homeopathy. Verbal chat 18:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and it makes for confusing reading as the section starts to distinguish DoS from "modern western" medicine, when homeopathy is western and comparitively recent. I've separated it into herbalism and homeopathy (the two being related only by their non adherence to evidence-based-medicine, and otherwise very dissimilar). Arguably the homeopathy section is totally irrelevant now, although I can see why DoS may have been inspirational to someone devising a system of treatment based on like-treats-like. Hopefully a subject expert will stumble along and expand it, before someone else deletes it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

───────────────────────── I think this statement sounds dubious and is likely OR added in Oct. 2010 by a driveby IP with only two edits:

  • "Homeopathy did not espouse the doctrine of signatures. The founder of Homoeopathy in his Organon of Medicine in aphorism 110 stated clearly it had no place or reference to the curative power of drugs."

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't find it in the quote of aphorism 110 provided there. The obvious similarity (in superstitious thinking) between the doctrine of signatures and the law of similars makes me wonder if some OR is occurring.

A search quickly produced this statement from a homeopathy article:

  • "two key concepts in homeopathic theory - miasms and the doctrine of signatures"[1]

It's called a "key concept", so we have quite the contradiction! Rather than removing the section, with more sources like this we may actually be able to tie the two things together and state that "the doctrine of signatures is a key concept in homeopathy". A consequence would be that we could include it in the homeopathy article.

Please help me research this matter (you can use the search I have linked above) and possibly revise or remove that possibly dubious statement or section. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we should be careful about saying what homeopaths believe in general, since this is an area where different homeopaths might hold varying (and sometimes mutually contradictory) beliefs. However, a quick search revealed various examples in sources such as this or this. bobrayner (talk) 01:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point and nice improvement. As long as we have good sources, we can document differing POV on the subject. I notice that some of the sources discuss that some homeopaths are for and others against, so I'll add a slight modification. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I quickly tried to research this, and could not find anything close to an RS. I started a new section below related to NRS matters.HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete Homeopathy Section? NRS[edit]

  • Why are any of the sources cited in the homeopathy section considered reliable? It seems like anyone who calls themselves a homeopathist can declare anything to be part of homeopathy, which would make every article at Wikipedia subject to having a homeopathy section. There is no mention of the doctrine of signatures in the homeopathy article. I suggest deleting the homeopathy section unless there is a RS, and if there is, there should be a doctrine of signatures mention in the homeopathy article. Otherwise, the homeopathy section is basically an advert for homeopathy. I just did a google search for homeopathy and "black hole", and got 30 times as many results as I got for homeopathy and "doctrine of signatures". But we should not have a homeopathy seciton in the black hole article. This[2] seems no less a reliable source than those in this article's homeopathy section, but it is not an RS. Maybe I am missing something as to how not to find many articles NRS.HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I basically agree. I discovered the section with very dubious content, as you can see from my comments above. I tried to improve it (not very satisfactorily for my own standards) and also left notices a couple places seeking more eyes and hoping for improvement and better sources, but nothing's happened. Until we get better sources I see no reason to preserve it. The trash bin is thataway ---> -- Brangifer (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Done. I noticed this article because of your alert in the homeopathy talk page. The doctrine of signatures is similar, in a sense, to taxonomical methods in botany before Linnaeus, which used shape (e.g., leaf shape), not sex (flower structure, or DNA) to categorize plants as being related.HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's right. The logical connection to homeopathy would be because of the similarity in magical thinking used to arrive at the so-called "Law of similars", which isn't a real natural law at all, but just something declared by Hahnemann. As with so many other forms of traditional and alternative medicine, they are made up out of partial or even whole cloth. If you're smart enough, you can invent your own scam and make a fortune. It looks like we're done with this one, so I'll mark this "resolved". -- Brangifer (talk) 04:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS applies to some of the content here[edit]

Our WP:MEDRS guideline applies to some of the content here, so we need to be more careful. From the guideline:

I suggest that the sources used in this article be reviewed and possibly revised with this in mind. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree. See my comment above on the entire homeopathy section.HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Without considering other discussions on this page, I hope you notice there are two parts to the guideline, and that some things here are not covered by MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent dates[edit]

I am new to this topic, and was confused by inconsistent dates in the article. At the outset it indicates that it originated about 1900 years ago, but in the history section it states that it was Paracelsus (1491–1541) who developed it. It is also not clear what parts of the world it existed in.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Independent not dependent clauses[edit]

I posted a typo in my most recent comment that accompanied my most recent edit. It should have read between two independent clauses, not two dependent clauses. This is what happens when a person is rude. I get distracted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)