FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSDIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

ANcient medical science

 


yagnyavalkya
IS ayurveda the progenitor of the modern system of medicine
I have heard people say in this forum that is based on faith which I think it is gross misunderstanding of this system
Bikerman wrote:
vineeth wrote:
Philosophy is not a science according to present concepts of science or its levels of understanding. Philosophy becomes a science when its arguments are proved by some known or accepted scientific methods. A good example is Ayurveda which was purely a part of Indian philosophical system but now widely accepted as a branch of or parent of medical science.
No it isn't. It is a branch of medical practice..not medical science. It certainly is not a 'parent' of either.
Ayurveda is in essence a belief system. It is based on faith. It contains many practices which are testable in science and, no doubt, some which are useful, but Ayurveda itself is not accepted as a scientific discipline.
the above quote from the thread Is philosophy a science" As i cannot continue discussing Ayurveda in that thread I am taking the liberty of starting a new thread here
coming back to the point
Ayurveda is in essence a belief system I refute that claim or statement
Ayurveda actually used several chemically active components of plants to treat clinical symptoms with varying degree of prognosis
eg is that in ancient times the plant Atropa belladona ( deadly night shade was used to treat snake bit) the exponents of Ayurveda did not just do this with "faith and belief" but actually (as we know after the advent of modern medicine and HPLC and GLC and MALDI TOF ( these are instruments for fractionilization and purification in isolation of chemicals from plants) Atropine a potent anti snake venom. This is just one of the simple examples
I would very much want your views on Ayurveda
A science or as bike has put just a belief system with faith
PS calling it just faith makes one think of it as something like faith healing so popular inthe west
Bikerman
There is no misunderstanding and I stand by my words - it is a belief system.
Where does it come from ?
Quote:
According to the Ayurvedavatarana (the "descent of Ayurveda"), the origin of Ayurveda is stated to be a divine revelation of the ancient Indian creator God Lord Brahma as he awoke to recreate the universe.

Hmm....that would be a faith system I think...

That is not to say (and I did not say) that it does not contain some knowledge and practices that may well be useful and which might translate into a scientific understanding - I have no doubt that it does.
It also, however, contains many items of dogma and statements which have to be accepted and for which there is no mechanism or satisfactory explanation. Thus you simply have to 'believe' the statements - it is a belief system.

Heres a couple of examples
1) Ayurvedic tastes. In Ayurveda the tastes of foods are said to have specific physiological effects. Specifically:
  • Sweet (Madhura) - Sweet foods nourish, cool, moisten, oil, and increase weight
  • Sour (Amla) - Sour foods warm, oil, and increase weight
  • Salty (Lavan) - Salty foods warm, dissolve, stimulate, soften, oil, and increase weight
  • Bitter (Katu) - Bitter foods cool, dry, purify and decrease weight
  • Pungent (Tikta) - Pungent foods warm, dry, stimulate, and decrease weight
  • Astringent (Kasaya) - Astringent foods cool, dry, reduce stickiness.
Evidence ? Don't make me laugh.

2) Ayerveda also relies on a belief in the 'bodily humours'. This used to be a feature of western medicine but was ditched when it was shown to be nonsense.

So, yes, it is a belief system. If you don't like that description then I'm afraid that is not really my problem. I did not say it was 'only' a belief system - I clearly said that it has many doctrines and dogmas which can be tested under science. Unfortunately there is very little evidence around (I tried to find some but failed miserably). If you have access to studies on Ayerveda claims then by all means let's see them.

To answer the question directly - no it is NOT the progenitor of the modern system of medical science and you have certainly not refuted my claim that it is based on belief...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda
TBSC
Interesting, thanks.
yagnyavalkya
Bikerman wrote:
There is no misunderstanding and I stand by my words - it is a belief system.
Where does it come from ?
Quote:
According to the Ayurvedavatarana (the "descent of Ayurveda"), the origin of Ayurveda is stated to be a divine revelation of the ancient Indian creator God Lord Brahma as he awoke to recreate the universe.

Hmm....that would be a faith system I think...

That is not to say (and I did not say) that it does not contain some knowledge and practices that may well be useful and which might translate into a scientific understanding - I have no doubt that it does.
It also, however, contains many items of dogma and statements which have to be accepted and for which there is no mechanism or satisfactory explanation. Thus you simply have to 'believe' the statements - it is a belief system.

Heres a couple of examples
1) Ayurvedic tastes. In Ayurveda the tastes of foods are said to have specific physiological effects. Specifically:
  • Sweet (Madhura) - Sweet foods nourish, cool, moisten, oil, and increase weight
  • Sour (Amla) - Sour foods warm, oil, and increase weight
  • Salty (Lavan) - Salty foods warm, dissolve, stimulate, soften, oil, and increase weight
  • Bitter (Katu) - Bitter foods cool, dry, purify and decrease weight
  • Pungent (Tikta) - Pungent foods warm, dry, stimulate, and decrease weight
  • Astringent (Kasaya) - Astringent foods cool, dry, reduce stickiness.
Evidence ? Don't make me laugh.

2) Ayerveda also relies on a belief in the 'bodily humours'. This used to be a feature of western medicine but was ditched when it was shown to be nonsense.

So, yes, it is a belief system. If you don't like that description then I'm afraid that is not really my problem. I did not say it was 'only' a belief system - I clearly said that it has many doctrines and dogmas which can be tested under science. Unfortunately there is very little evidence around (I tried to find some but failed miserably). If you have access to studies on Ayerveda claims then by all means let's see them.

To answer the question directly - no it is NOT the progenitor of the modern system of medical science and you have certainly not refuted my claim that it is based on belief...

No you are still wrong
It is not a belief system in the practical sense
The items you mentioned in tastes in just a myth to make it an esoteric subject in the ancient times like wise in fact it makes me laugh too but not only the tastes but also you giving credence to those statements to support you hypo that it is a belief
Ayurvedavatarana explanation of ayurveda is just again to make it look divine
Surely a medical practice cannot be divine
that is the mythological aspects of ayurveda which is just a myth
you are confusing the science of ayurveda with myth
It is the practice and practical utility of the the system in the modern context that one should look at
It definitely is the most ancient recorded system of medicine
If you don't want to accept facts that is another thing
actually to say that it is not the first ever system of successful medical practice you have to prove otherwise and give me examples of other systems which can qualify better as the progenitor of modern medicine in the time line of history of medicine
Actually it is better defined as herbalism
Dont confuse myth and religous beleif with a practical method of medical treatment
quote Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine) Ayurveda (the science of living), is the literate, scholarly system of medicine that originated over 2000 years ago in South Asia. Its two most famous texts belong to the schools of Caraka and Suśruta. While these writings display some limited continuities with very ancient medical ideas known from the religious literature called the Veda, historians have been able to demonstrate direct historical connections between early āyurveda and the early literature of the Buddhists and Jains. It seems that the earliest foundations of āyurveda were built on a synthesis of selected ancient herbal practices dating back to the early second millennium BC, together with a massive addition of theoretical conceptualizations, new nosologies and new therapies dating from about 400 BC onwards, and coming out of the communities of thinkers who included the Buddha and others.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda
Coming back to you research on taste I don't understand what makes you laugh there
Just try a research on the components on the food with the mentioned taste- get the chemical ( eg sweet - sugar ) and try and find out the effect of that particular chemical on human body I bet you may not laugh
Thank god all the people did not just laugh at that lest we would not have got a " one chemical multiple interaction and several effects" hypothesis which actually paved the way to drug discovery


Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:07 pm; edited 2 times in total
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
No you are still wrong
It is not a belief system in the practical sense
The items you mentioned in tastes in just a myth to make it an esoteric subject in the ancient times like wise in fact it makes me laugh too but not only the tastes but also you giving credence to those statements to support you hypo that it is a belief
So you are saying that the taste idea is not incorporated into modern Ayurveda? I beg to differ. Are you saying that the concept of bodily humours is not central to the practice of Ayurveda? I beg to differ.
Quote:
Surely a medical practice cannot be divine
that is the mythological aspects of ayurveda which is just a myth
you are confusing the science of ayurveda with myth
It is the practice and practical utility of the the system in the modern context that one should look at
It definitely is the most ancient recorded system of medicine
If you don't want to accept facts that is another thing
actually to say that it is not the first ever system of successful medical practice you have to prove otherwise and give me examples of other systems which can qualify better as the progenitor of modern medicine in the time line of history of medicine
Actually it is better defined as herbalism
Dont confuse myth and religous beleif with a practical method of medical treatment
I confused nothing. Ayurvada is a 'complete' system which includes elements of mysticism and, based on that mysticism, it develops themes of medical 'knowledge'. I did not say that it was not the most ancient system of medicine - I said that it is NOT the progenitor of modern medical science. It isn't. End of story.
yagnyavalkya
Firstly seeking ends is not the objectives in this forum
Not quite the end of the story
In order to say that it is not progenitor of modern medicine in definite terms you just have say what or which system is the progenitor of the system
saying that with sufficient proof will probably end the story
Let me clear please don't go on populist Hindu or Indian literature to understand and judge Ayurveda
use your discretion and decide what is true and what is not. Try a new perspective on the what it could have practically been in terms of clinical, diagnostic and prognostic medicine
Just try this
As rational people here in this forum would have it we definitely don't accept that that ayurveda was handed down to people from Gods
but actually like any other ancient science it was trial and error that filtered the unsuccessful methods
Like I said earlier Medicine was revolutionized in the 19th century and beyond by advances in chemistry and laboratory techniques and equipment, old ideas of infectious disease epidemiology were replaced with bacteriology etc.,
Chemistry is the central part of all medicine
so was ayurveda only that chemical naturally found were used
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Firstly seeking ends is not the objectives in this forum
Not quite the end of the story
In order to say that it is not progenitor of modern medicine in definite terms you just have say what or which system is the progenitor of the system
saying that with sufficient proof will probably end the story
Well why not try reading some history on the matter.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_medicine

Herbalism clearly predates the Vedic texts by millenia. Different systems of medicine arose in different cultures based on different belief systems. Ayurveda is just one of those systems - there were obviously systems before - stretching back to the first healers and shamen.
yagnyavalkya
Shamanism was not a system of medicine
I am talking about let me try and put it through a system which used Clinical, diagnostic and prognostic methods only when considering these aspects one can search for the progenitor of medicine as we see it now
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Shamanism was not a system of medicine
It most certainly was.
Quote:
I am talking about let me try and put it through a system which used Clinical, diagnostic and prognostic methods only when considering these aspects one can search for the progenitor of medicine as we see it now

Clinical - having to do with a clinic
Diagnostic - determining the cause of an illness
Prognostic - A sign or symptom indicating the future course of a disease
Yep - shamanism ticks all those boxes.
yagnyavalkya
shaman's healing art combines various techniques of divining in his diagnosis and prognosis. I am not talking about diving
clinic is a time and space coordinate and nothing can done which does not have time and space coordinates
the shaman has to do his/her work somewhere and that wherever can be called a clinic that not the clinical I am talking about
clinical is The study and practice of medicine based on direct observation of patients this is imperative in any form of medicine
By definition anyone who uses a herb for medicine is a herbalist
I agree that herbalism was prevalent long ago and that is what is exactly auyur veda
only that some call it herbalism which actually is ayurveda
Here is some reading from National Institute of health on ayurveda
this pertains to Beliefs in ayurveda
4. What major beliefs underlie Ayurveda?
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda/
Here is a summary of major beliefs in Ayurveda that pertain to health and disease.

Interconnectedness

Ideas about the relationships among people, their health, and the universe form the basis for how Ayurvedic practitioners think about problems that affect health. Ayurveda holds that:

* All things in the universe (both living and nonliving) are joined together.

* Every human being contains elements that can be found in the universe.

* All people are born in a state of balance within themselves and in relation to the universe.

* This state of balance is disrupted by the processes of life. Disruptions can be physical, emotional, spiritual, or a combination. Imbalances weaken the body and make the person susceptible to disease.

* Health will be good if one's interaction with the immediate environment is effective and wholesome.

* Disease arises when a person is out of harmony with the universe.
Not bad and surely does not make me laugh considering the fact that philosophy was the progenitor for science
what one should understand is that where does ayurveda stand in the modern context
The following is an excellent article on this topic as a whole
Bhatt AD. Clinical research on Ayurvedic therapies: myths, realities, and challenges. Journal of the Associated Physicians of India. 2001;49:558-562.
I will try and get you the full text if you ant get hold of it
coming to publications in ayurvedic medicine
Many Ayurvedic practices were handed down by word of mouth and were used before there were written records. Two ancient books, written in Sanskrit on palm leaves more than 2,000 years ago, are thought to be the first texts on Ayurveda--Caraka Samhita and Susruta Samhita. They cover many topics, including:

* Pathology (the causes of illness)
* Diagnosis
* Treatment
* Surgery (this is no longer part of standard Ayurvedic practice)
* How to care for children
* Lifestyle
* Advice for practitioners, including medical ethics
* Philosophy
Did shaman ism and herbalism for that matter have all this?
Ibid http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ayurveda
So here i definetly see something that start off modern medicine


Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:21 pm; edited 1 time in total
TBSC
Bikerman wrote:
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Shamanism was not a system of medicine
It most certainly was.
Quote:
I am talking about let me try and put it through a system which used Clinical, diagnostic and prognostic methods only when considering these aspects one can search for the progenitor of medicine as we see it now

Clinical - having to do with a clinic
Diagnostic - determining the cause of an illness
Prognostic - A sign or symptom indicating the future course of a disease
Yep - shamanism ticks all those boxes.


Hi Chris, well the difference there is that Clinical, Diagnostic, and Prognostic have to do with empirical evidence. Shamanism has nothing or very little to do with empirical evidence, and more to do with superstition. That is, if we are defining Shamanism as evoking spirits and such.
TBSC
yagnyavalkya wrote:

Ideas about the relationships among people, their health, and the universe form the basis for how Ayurvedic practitioners think about problems that affect health. Ayurveda holds that:

* All things in the universe (both living and nonliving) are joined together.

* Every human being contains elements that can be found in the universe.

* All people are born in a state of balance within themselves and in relation to the universe.

* This state of balance is disrupted by the processes of life. Disruptions can be physical, emotional, spiritual, or a combination. Imbalances weaken the body and make the person susceptible to disease.

* Health will be good if one's interaction with the immediate environment is effective and wholesome.

* Disease arises when a person is out of harmony with the universe.


This sounds like an attempt at medicine but not quite, because it has superstition in it. The point about every human containing elements of the universe is interesting. This seems like a trap because it combines seemingly scientific elements with superstitous ones. Interdependence is a good observation, but saying that everything is joined together is unproven. Disease states arise out of superstition and false medicine as well. Being out of harmony with the universe is a very vague and hard to define concept that can be taken superstitionsly since it has little concrete definition of what it means to be out of harmony with the universe.

In short, this is new age mumbo jumbo. Wink
yagnyavalkya
Thats what I am trying to say
Remember those beliefs I mentioned were written down about 2000 years ago
considering the state of science at that time is quite a good attempt at answering questions
considering that there was no system of medicine at that time in the western world this is quite good or is is it still mumbo jumjo
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Here is a summary of major beliefs in Ayurveda that pertain to health and disease.

Interconnectedness

Ideas about the relationships among people, their health, and the universe form the basis for how Ayurvedic practitioners think about problems that affect health. Ayurveda holds that:

* All things in the universe (both living and nonliving) are joined together.

* Every human being contains elements that can be found in the universe.

* All people are born in a state of balance within themselves and in relation to the universe.

* This state of balance is disrupted by the processes of life. Disruptions can be physical, emotional, spiritual, or a combination. Imbalances weaken the body and make the person susceptible to disease.

* Health will be good if one's interaction with the immediate environment is effective and wholesome.

* Disease arises when a person is out of harmony with the universe.
Not bad and surely does not make me laugh considering the fact that philosophy was the progenitor for science
But these fundamentals represent a belief system do they not?
All things in the universe are connected? What does that mean? All people are born in a state of balance? Nonsense. Health will be good if interaction is.....etc. Prove it. Disease arises from disharmony? Faith - nothing more.
Bikerman
TBSC wrote:
Hi Chris, well the difference there is that Clinical, Diagnostic, and Prognostic have to do with empirical evidence. Shamanism has nothing or very little to do with empirical evidence, and more to do with superstition. That is, if we are defining Shamanism as evoking spirits and such.

No - that is not implicit in the terms. I agree that our modern understanding implies empirical evidence but the discussion is about a system which does not imply such things and whether it is the 'father' or 'mother' of modern medicine. A shaman would diagnose based on a set of beliefs. So does Ayurveda. The same applies for prognosis.
yagnyavalkya
There were only beliefs 2000 years ago
there was not science as we see it now
Place ayurveda in the context of the time it originated and compare it with the contemporaneity of systems at that time then probably we can understand it better
The actual diagnosis and treatment in ancient time was not based on beliefs as you say but observation
how could have someone like shusrutha have conducted surgery just based on belief
there was a great deal of observation trial and error
Susruta did not only talk about specific groups of
procedures and specific interventions but also about surgery in general,

including surgical training. Indeed, it has been said that “Susruta gives us a
historical window into a school of professionalized surgical practice…..which
was in its day, almost certainly the most advanced school of surgery in the
world.
That is a far cry from shamanism


Last edited by yagnyavalkya on Fri Mar 21, 2008 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
TBSC
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Thats what I am trying to say
Remember those beliefs I mentioned were written down about 2000 years ago
considering the state of science at that time is quite a good attempt at answering questions
considering that there was no system of medicine at that time in the western world this is quite good or is is it still mumbo jumjo


Yeah its definitely interesting. I'd say it is pretty good considering it was from 2000 years ago. They did what they had to do. They probably even cured people. It is quite remarkable what simply believing can do in cures.
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
There were only beliefs 2000 years ago
there was not science as we see it now
Place ayurveda in the context of the time it originated and compare it with the contemporaneity of systems at that time then probably we can understand it better

So you agree that Ayurveda is a belief system? That was my only point, and the point to which you took exception. You now seem to accept it.
I have no interest in understanding Ayurveda in more detail - I am quite happy with modern medical science.
TBSC
yagnyavalkya wrote:
There were only beliefs 2000 years ago
there was not science as we see it now
Place ayurveda in the context of the time it originated and compare it with the contemporaneity of systems at that time then probably we can understand it better
The actual diagnosis and treatment in ancient time was not based on beliefs as you say but observation
how could have someone like shusrutha have conducted surgery just based on belief
there was a great deal of observation trial and error
Susruta did not only talk about specific groups of
procedures and specific interventions but also about surgery in general,

including surgical training. Indeed, it has been said that “Susruta gives us a
historical window into a school of professionalized surgical practice…..which
was in its day, almost certainly the most advanced school of surgery in the
world.
That is a far cry from shamanism


True science did a lot to purge superstition away. Although there are still people who will cling to superstition as "alternative medicine", consider accupuncture for example.
yagnyavalkya
Just have a look at my post on sushurutha above
He did not operate on beliefs

Bikerman wrote:
I have no interest in understanding Ayurveda in more detail - I am quite happy with modern medical science.

I care less for your interests I am not asking you read what ever I write
I find it amazing that for all that you care you seem to posting a lot in this thread
in fact I am not interested in finding out with what system of medicine you are happy with
and I also find it odd that such statements are coming from you ( for all the post in philosophy, science and religion)
Remember we are talking about history of medicine and not about our personal bias
Thanks anyway
Bikerman
yagnyavalkya wrote:
Just have a look at my post on sushurutha above
He did not operate on beliefs

Bikerman wrote:
I have no interest in understanding Ayurveda in more detail - I am quite happy with modern medical science.

I care less for your interests I am not asking you read what ever I write
I find it amazing that for all that you care you seem to posting a lot in this thread
in fact I am not interested in finding out with what system of medicine you are happy with
and I also find it odd that such statements are coming from you ( for all the post in philosophy, science and religion)
Remember we are talking about history of medicine and not about our personal bias
Thanks anyway
I was not talking about either - I was defending a statement that I made and which you attacked. The statement was, and is, valid.
yagnyavalkya
What is the degree of validity of your statement ?
Your statement was "No it isn't. It is a branch of medical practice..not medical science. Ayurveda is in essence a belief system. It is based on faith. "
Actually how do you go about proving that the above statement is valid inthe light of my argument above otherwise?
Prove to me that
1. Ayurveda is not a science and it is/was just practice. To do that you have to prove that ayurveda was unscientific or did not have anything to do with science as it was known in those days
2. Ayurveda was/is based on belief and not observation
3. It was/is based on faith
All these in the light of known facts of ayurveda
Just having an opinion about ayurveda does not constitute to historical facts
Ayurvada was just faith
1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Ayurveda was just a belief
2. 1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
Atropine was used in ayurveda for snake bite treatments successfully
Turmeric was used as an anti micorbial
was it just because they just had faith in turmeric and belladona?
we just have to check the bioactive components of these plants to know the reason for its use
it is more than faith
just have a look at this ( http://www.american.edu/ted/turmeric.htm)
that is too much to go for just faith!
Knowledge as against faith and belief that a group of plants ( mentioned below had hepatoprotective properties)
Phyllanthus amarus Schum & Thonn. or Phyllanthus maderaspatensis Linn. or mixture of Phyllanthus amarus, Phyllanthus fratemus Webster. and Phyllanthus maderaspatensis. detailed pharmacognostical evaluation of all the three species has establish the identification of markers that have important hepatoprotective properties

now the US is after to get patents on these plant products ( http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6586015-description.html)
probably the US patent office has started to recognize faith and belief for granting patents
Actually we do not know how the ancient people actually found these properties of the plants
since we knew chemical analysis and clinical testing was not there then as it is now
we conveniently say it was just faith and belief
but conversely the plant products were tested in time and definitely various trial and error experiments would have been consciously or unconsciously conducted to ascertain these properties but not recorded or published as we do nowadays
Although as you have already made up your mind that it is faith and belief these facts at least will set you thinking I guess?
Bikerman
You repeatedly and obviously deliberately misquote me to form a straw man argument.
I never said that Ayurveda was JUST a belief - in fact I said explicitly and specifically several times that it contained practices and techniques which are open to scientific validation. You deliberately misrepresent my argument - which annoys me. I will, therefore, cease debating you since I consider you dishonest.
Jinx
I would have to say that no belief system could be considered the parent of modern medicine, and yet all of them may have influenced it.
From the time Human Beings were first able to recognize cause and effect we have been noticing the effects of certain plants and chemicals on our bodies.
Take Foxglove as an example - If you eat foxglove your heart rate increases, because it contains digitalis. This would have been observed by the earliest herbal healers. Having observed this, whatever myth they used to explain it was just window dressing. The fact remains that Foxglove has an effect on the heart.
Modern medicine grew out of the bits and pieces of ancient systems that could be positively observed to work, then stripped of the myths and stories that surrounded them. We learned about anatomy by observing the human body, dissecting cadavers, and later using more advanced technology to observe the workings of biological systems.
Many of our modern drugs have their precursors in herbal remedies from many different cultures.
The key here is scientific observation. Ayurveda may have had some parts that, when examined scientifically, actually worked. But then, so did the tisanes and potions of Celtic wise women, or the droughts and elixirs of medieval apothecaries. Or the chewing of certain leaves by the native inhabitants of the Amazon rain forests.
In this way, many belief based healing systems added to the knowledge of modern medicine, but none of them could be definitively said to be the parent of modern medicine.
Bikerman
Yes Jinx, I think that is a fair summary. Modern medicine owes much to previous systems of thought, for sure. It can be argued that much of modern medicine is derived from Islamic developments by people such as Abu al-Qasim (regarded as the father of modern surgery) and Avicenna.

The fact is, though, that the 19th century is probably the time when the most important developments were made - leading to current medical science. Advances in chemistry and the advent of bacteriology during that century were arguably the most important developments in modern medicine.
HalfBloodPrince
Religion may not be a parent to modern medicine, in fact it is far from it, but it may strongly be influenced by it. As pointed by Bikerman, Islam also plays a major part (I'm not too familiar with other belief systems, so anyone could add on with those):

Quote:
Medicine

Main article: Islamic medicine
Further information: Ophthalmology in medieval Islam and Bimaristan

Abu al-Qasim (Abulcasis), a pioneer of modern surgery.
Abu al-Qasim (Abulcasis), a pioneer of modern surgery.

Muslim physicians made many significant advances and contributions to medicine, including anatomy, ophthalmology, pathology, the pharmaceutical sciences (including pharmacy and pharmacology), physiology, and surgery. Muslim physicians set up some of the earliest dedicated hospitals, which later spread to Europe during the Crusades, inspired by the hospitals in the Middle East.[133]

Al-Kindi wrote De Gradibus, in which he first demonstrated the application of quantification and mathematics to medicine, particularly in the field of pharmacology. This includes the development of a mathematical scale to quantify the strength of drugs, and a system that would allow a doctor to determine in advance the most critical days of a patient's illness.[134] Razi (Rhazes) (865-925), a pioneer of pediatrics,[135] recorded clinical cases of his own experience and provided very useful recordings of various diseases. His Comprehensive Book of Medicine, which introduced measles and smallpox, was very influential in Europe. In his Doubts about Galen, al-Razi was also the first to prove both Galen's theory of humorism and Aristotle's theory of classical elements false using experimentation.[99] He also introduced urinalysis and stool tests.[136]

Abu al-Qasim (Abulcasis), considered a pioneer of modern surgery,[137] wrote the Al-Tasrif (1000), a 30-volume medical encyclopedia which was taught at Muslim and European medical schools until the 17th century. He invented numerous surgical instruments, including the first instruments unique to women,[138] as well as the surgical uses of catgut and forceps, the ligature, surgical needle, scalpel, curette, retractor, surgical spoon, sound, surgical hook, surgical rod, and specula,[139] bone saw,[78] and plaster.[140] In 1021, Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen) made important advances in eye surgery, as he studied and correctly explained the process of sight and visual perception for the first time in his Book of Optics (1021).[138]

Avicenna, who was a pioneer of experimental medicine and was also an influential thinker and medical scholar,[133] wrote The Canon of Medicine (1025) and The Book of Healing (1027), which remained standard textbooks in both Muslim and European universities until at least the 17th century. Avicenna's contributions include the introduction of systematic experimentation and quantification into the study of physiology,[141] the discovery of the contagious nature of infectious diseases, the introduction of quarantine to limit the spread of contagious diseases, the introduction of experimental medicine, evidence-based medicine, clinical trials,[142] randomized controlled trials,[143][144] efficacy tests,[145][146] and clinical pharmacology,[147] the importance of dietetics and the influence of climate and environment on health,[148] the distinction of mediastinitis from pleurisy, the contagious nature of phthisis and tuberculosis, the distribution of diseases by water and soil, and the first careful descriptions of skin troubles, sexually transmitted diseases, perversions, and nervous ailments,[133] as well the use of ice to treat fevers, and the separation of medicine from pharmacology, which was important to the development of the pharmaceutical sciences.[138]

Ibn Zuhr (Avenzoar) is considered a pioneer of experimental surgery,[149] for introducing the experimental method into surgery in the 12th century, as he was the first to employ animal testing in order to experiment with surgical procedures before applying them to human patients.[26] He also performed the first dissections and postmortem autopsies on humans as well as animals.[150]

In 1242, Ibn al-Nafis, considered a pioneer of circulatory physiology,[151] was the first to describe pulmonary circulation and coronary circulation,[152] which form the basis of the circulatory system, for which he is considered one of the greatest physiologists in history.[153] He also described the earliest concept of metabolism,[154] and developed new systems of physiology and psychology to replace the Avicennian and Galenic systems, while discrediting many of their erroneous theories on the four humours, pulsation,[155] bones, muscles, intestines, sensory organs, bilious canals, esophagus, stomach, etc.[156] Ibn al-Lubudi (1210-1267) rejected the theory of four humours supported by Galen and Hippocrates, discovered that the body and its preservation depend exclusively upon blood, rejected Galen's idea that women can produce sperm, and discovered that the movement of arteries are not dependent upon the movement of the heart, that the heart is the first organ to form in a fetus' body (rather than the brain as claimed by Hippocrates), and that the bones forming the skull can grow into tumors.[157]

The Tashrih al-badan (Anatomy of the body) of Mansur ibn Ilyas (c. 1390) contained comprehensive diagrams of the body's structural, nervous and circulatory systems.[158] During the Black Death bubonic plague in 14th century al-Andalus, Ibn Khatima and Ibn al-Khatib hypothesized that infectious diseases are caused by "contagious entities" which enter the human body.[159] Other medical innovations first introduced by Muslim physicians include the discovery of the immune system, the use of animal testing, and the combination of medicine with other sciences (including agriculture, botany, chemistry, and pharmacology),[138] as well as the invention of the injection syringe by Ammar ibn Ali al-Mawsili in 9th century Iraq, the first drugstores in Baghdad (754), the distinction between medicine and pharmacy by the 12th century, and the discovery of at least 2,000 medicinal and chemical substances.[160]


And for a full article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_medicine
Related topics

Another religions
Is philosophy a science?
is Space exploration worth it?
computer diagnosis
Beam weapons, a new way of warfare?

Vegetarianism
Stem Cell Research
Abortion: Yes or No?
What would you do?
What kind of science are you into?

Corrective surgery
The War on Smoking
Evolution
Is science a social and political construct?
Torture your mother?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.