Talk:Rudolf Virchow
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 13, 2019 and October 13, 2021. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Material added to Cellular pathology
editAn anon added:
- Rudolf Virchow was a German pathologist who studied under Johannes Muller. Virchow conflicted the idea that disease was a pain for body at large or one of its humor, wanting to find the location of diseases. In 1849, he married Rose Mayer and became the chair of pathological anatomy at the University of Würzburg. Virchow studied medicine in Berlin at the military academy of Prussia, where he graduated in 1843. He became professor in 1847. Due to political reasons, he moved to Würzburg two years later, where he worked on anatomy. In 1856, he returned to Berlin.He summarized the cell theory with the Latin phrase "omnis cellula a cellula" which means all cells come up from cells, in 1855. Virchow came up with the third part of the cell theory that states the “all cells come from preexisting cells.” In Die Cellularpathologie, he set out methods and objectives of pathology and demonstrated that cell theory applied to diseased tissue as well as healthy. Later in his life he committed himself to archaeology and anthropology, becoming friends with Schliemann and team up in the excavation of Troy. He was a member of the city council in 1861. He was elected to the Lower House of the Prussian National Assembly in 1861. During the Franco-Prussian War, Virchow worked to fight plague among soldiers. In 1858, the great pathologist Rudolf Virchow wrote a book titled Cellular Pathology. In this book Virchow formulated his concepts that changes in cells accounted for diseases in organs. Subsequently, Virchow postulated the response to injury model of atherosclerosis. Today, a revolution in our knowledge of vascular injury has essentially supported Virchow's concept of atherosclerosis. Virchow can rightly be called the father of experimental pathology, that part of pathology, which is concerned, with the mechanistic basis of disease.
Moved from biography
editThese two seems like non sequitors in the section on the sausage duel. "Social medicine" is already in the lede:
- "Virchow was respected in Masonic circles,[1] and according to one source[2] may have been a freemason, though no official record of this has been found.
- He is widely regarded as a pioneer of social medicine,[3] and anthropology.[4]"
References
- ^ "Rizal's Berlin associates, or perhaps the word "patrons" would give their relation better, were men as esteemed in Masonry as they were eminent in the scientific world—Virchow, for example." in JOSE RIZAL AS A MASON by AUSTIN CRAIG, The Builder Magazine, August 1916 – Volume II – Number 8
- ^ "It was a heady atmosphere for the young Brother, and Masons in Germany, Dr. Rudolf Virchow and Dr. Fedor Jagor, were instrumental in his becoming a member of the Berlin Ethnological and Anthropological Societies." From Dimasalang: The Masonic Life Of Dr. Jose P. Rizal By Reynold S. Fajardo, 33° by Fred Lamar Pearson, Scottish Rite Journal, October 1998
- ^ Virchow, Rudolf Carl (2006). "Report on the Typhus Epidemic in Upper Silesia". American Journal of Public Health. 96 (12): 2102–5. doi:10.2105/AJPH.96.12.2102. PMC 1698167. PMID 17123938.
- ^ Rx for Survival. Global Health Champions . Paul Farmer, MD, PhD | PBS. www.pbs.org
"Her tomb was shared by his husband on 21 February 01913" - _This is so well-written
editHis tomb was shared by his wife on 21 February 1913.[1]
References
- ^ "Rudolf Virchow tomb". HimeTop. Retrieved 28 November 2014.
Soup/Broth
editJust sharing an amusing random article with the forum.
"VIRCHOW ON SOUPS AND BROTH"
08-Apr-1882, Scientific American, pp208-209.
https://books.google.com/books?id=zoE9AQAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=rosenberger&f=false
SloppyTots (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Virchow calling Darwin an ignoramus
editThis is a seriously problematic statement in the present lead, which I just now flagged as dubious (at least as written).
As an anti-evolutionist, he called Charles Darwin an "ignoramus"[dubious – discuss] and his own student Ernst Haeckel a "fool". He described the original specimen of Neanderthal man as nothing but that of a deformed human.
The main citation here which affirms that Virchow called Darwin an ignoramus is Medical Life, Volume 34 from 1927, which I'm unable to access. And I don't doubt the word was cast in Darwin's direction a time or two.
But we need to be careful with that modifying phrase "as an anti-evolutionist" because it makes it appear that Virchow regarded Darwin as an ignoramus for proposing the whole of his theory in the first place (a common stance among the religious, but Virchow did not suffer from that adverse preconception). From what I was able to find fairly readily, Virchow was rather sophisticated in assessing Darwin's proposal as effectively having too many gaping holes with respect to available evidence. This was not an entirely unreasonable objection. Nor did it necessitate a demeaning opinion of Darwin's intellect or education.
One document I skimmed was
which appears to be a chapter from a book by Robert J. Richards. This does paint a picture of reflexive name-calling.
And also this pointedly non-smoking gun:
The reasons for their rejection of evolution remain unclear. Virchow's objections in his 1877 address were specifically about the political implications of evolution (leading apparently to socialism) and its unproven nature. These, however, can hardly be taken at face value, especially in light of Virchow's denial of any "wish to disparage the great services rendered by Mr. Darwin to the advancement of biological science, of which no one has expressed more admiration than [I have]."
Unfortunately, the citation to (16) https://www.nature.com/articles/017111a0.pdf does not support this, and I did not managed to decipher the inline notation 16:vi. There's no page vi in the front matter of this journal, so I'm stumped (if a common academic convention, it's not one I'm aware of).
Nevertheless, what appears to be far more correct is this: As a paleo-anthropologist, Virchow called Darwin an ignoramus, in connection with the interpretation of Neanderthal fossils.
Virchow was a man of some stature, and there is much written about Virchow all over the intertubes, and much of this loves the soundbite that Virchow was a mud-slinging name-caller of thin subtlety. Really? This serves to reposition Virchow closer to Creationist rhetoric that would certain deserves this depiction. There's so much Virchow echo chamber that it was hard to search "Virchow Darwin ignoramus" due to the blizzard of context-free regurgitation.
I think it's important that the lead identify and fully contextualize precisely what part of Darwin's thinking that Virchow was slapping down, because Virchow does not in any way fit my mold as being a buffoon who paints with a broad brush.
I usually sign off by confessing that I'm a tumble-weed editor, who comments on the way through, always on route to the next article, and I've left here was what I was able in the time available. — MaxEnt 00:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)