Talk:Claude Bernard

Magnus opus
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
Some suggestions for improvement as the article is expanded:

Espresso Addict 21:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Cupinfurs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
 * 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
 * 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".

Brothers Karamazov
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)

Religion
I should point out that the evidence that he was a fervent Catholic seems to come from the letter of one person after Bernard's death mentioned in one article (Donnet 1998). I tracked down the text of the article but unfortunately my French is almost non-existent (and Google translate can take one only so far); however, I'm not sure the letter shows a fervent Catholic (I've added the url to the ref for someone with better French). I also note that the entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia makes no mention of his religiosity other than he attended a Jesuit school in his youth. Having an entry in that Encyclopedia does not guarantee the person is a good Catholic (Martin Luther has an entry) and it is misleading to use it in this entry to imply that Bernard was a good Catholic. --Erp (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)