Talk:Doctrine of signatures

Homeopathy section

Resolved

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 90.195.131.216 (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

Resolved

• 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

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

• "This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability, with specific attention to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related aspects in any type of article, including information about alternative medicine. Sources for all other types of content, including that in medical articles, is covered by the guideline on identifying reliable sources instead of this 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

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

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 107.77.193.168 (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Removing Aspirin example

Aspirin discovery is not an example Doctrine of Signatures. There is no clue from the look of willow that it will treat pain. That the bark tasted bitter like another known medicine is a happy coincidence, but it is not a signature in the sense of Doctrine of Signatures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.231.203 (talk) 16:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Science

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2025 and 9 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Toni Tantioco, Sarah Beetner (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JulienHanson8244, Tjbm2f, HurleyBilla.

— Assignment last updated by K8shep (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Add a Section Titled "Remedies Linked to the Doctrine of Signatures"

I would like this section to be separated into 2 subdivisions: Effective and Ineffective

Each inclusion within the subdivisions should have a justification of why it was or wasn't successful, when it first became a treatment, and when it stopped being used (if still used today, include places). There should also be justification on why it was linked to the doctrine of signs (it should be clear whether it is a historical conjecture and use happened before the theory was proposed or actually documented to be inspired by the theory)

This would also mean moving this section: Signatures of some plants used in herbalism

Lungwort was thought to have the signature of the lungs and was used to treat lung infections. The concept of signatures is reflected in the common names of some plants whose shapes and colors reminded herbalists of the parts of the body where they were thought to do good, as for instance:

Eyebright, used for eye infections[5] Hedge woundwort, thought to have antiseptic qualities[8] Liverwort, either Marchantiophyta or Hepatica – used to treat the liver[9] Lungwort – used for pulmonary infections[10] Spleenwort, Asplenium – used to treat the spleen[11] Toothwort, Dentaria – used for tooth ailments Concepts similar to the doctrine of signatures may be found in folk or indigenous medicines, and in modern alternative medicines.[citation needed] from history and into the remedies linked to the doctrine of signatures section. Sarah Beetner (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

While moving the section "signatures of some plants used in herbalism" I am rewording these additions/adding to them but so far I have not found reasons to remove any Sarah Beetner (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Upon further research, I will be removing toothwort because there is not enough research I could find. If there are sources found, others can add it back to the table. The reason I found the sources not reputable is because any medical claim needs to represent an overviewing scientific opinion and there are no current articles that outline arguments and perspectives on the medical uses of toothwort and thus would venture into the realm of conjecture. Sarah Beetner (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Source 4 reputability

I was looking at this sentence "For instance, birthwort (so-called because of its resemblance to the uterus) was once used widely for pregnancies, but is carcinogenic and very damaging to the kidneys, owing to its aristolochic acid content.[4] As a defense against predation, many plants contain toxic chemicals, the action of which is not immediately apparent, or easily tied to the plant rather than other factors." and the claim of damage and carcinogenetic properties is a large claim that needs scientific justification so when I read the source I realized that it was published in 2010 and that there is no cited sources within that article or a cited author. I wish to remove this claim/update it with a more current article and then move it to the section I proposed about the remedies linked to the doctrine. I wanted to make this forum if someone has a justification for this claim or would like to update their own addition rather than have me alter it. Sarah Beetner (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I found a source that supports this and thus will still be including it but won't be maintaining the original source Sarah Beetner (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Scientific Skepticism Section Renaming and additions

The section on scientific skepticism seems to border on opinion/bias. I would like to revise it to include the fact that it is mainly spiritual and philosophical in basis. The proposed new title would be "Scientific Merit and Spiritual Context". It's important, in my opinion, to establish the religious and spiritual context first so that would be the first subheading and then the next section would be a scientific analysis. I think that boiling it down to only science would deny that this theory is in many ways not scientific in basis (this is from my reading of Bohme's book which coins the phrase which is a Christian argument). Presenting this in isolation also denies the fact that historical science was in many ways religious. I think that the transition between these subsections would allow for that clarification on the differences between science at the time and present day. The idea is to give the reader the tools to determine the merit of the doctrine on their own without inserting our own opinion which may be hard.

I would also like to move this section to be above the "in literature" section since this is, as a prior discussion post mentioned, bordering on a health topic. It's important to establish early the current views on this topic and its reputability before adding information like the literature. It also feels like a logical flow from the history section since the history section lays the foundation for current day perspectives.

Other input would be appreciated since this does ride a medical/ethical line and providing accurate while still unbiased information may be difficult. Sarah Beetner (talk) 15:35, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The debate of origin and Galen's debated influence

The article states that it dates from the time of Dioscorides and Galen but the origins of the signature of doctrines is relatively unknown. We know that it was coined and termed in the 16th and 17th century, but the actual definitive origin of it has been seen in many ancient cultures according to the first cited article by Efraim Lev. The 2nd cited article in the Wikipedia article (by Bradley Bennett) mentions how Galen's influence on the DOS was weak due to his opposite cures opposite mantra. I think including the unknown origins of the original doctrine and The Signature of All Things being a key book in phrasing it be kept as well as removing Galen from the article as his influence seems to be debated at best and insignificant at worst. Toni Tantioco (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Clarity of the origin and future proposed changes

Since the debate of origin of the doctrine of signatures is clear, I have edited the history section and I will later edit the introduction section to reflect this. Because of the influence of AI and google gemini (google's AI) linking the article whenever you look up the doctrine of signatures, I believe in its importance to reflect proper information for anyone else who may be looking at this article in the future. Future proposed changes to the article involves cleaning up the history section by adding subsections reflecting different time eras and additional information to the relevant time periods. Toni Tantioco (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)