Talk:David Macht
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
TO: Mickwest
[edit]I am impressed with your Dr. Macht research in the bio section. Here is a tip for further research regarding Dr. macht being a snake venom expert as reported by the NY times.
Here is the quote:
"I obtained a New York Times article in which Dr David Macht, a leading authority on cobra snake venom, claimed cobras hear the music of snake charmers and that the Bible agrees with this but that biologists since the time of Shakespeare had taught that snakes are deaf. (1954 January 10 Section 4 page 9)"
taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BWilliamsvsAnon71to73.htm
Also see:
"Dr. David I. Macht, research pharmacologist of the Mount Sinai Hospital in Baltimore, is one of the world’s leading authorities on cobra snake venom. (Cobra venom is an accepted medication, in blood disorders for instance.)
Dr. Macht reported that in working with cobras and cobra venom he became acquainted with a number of Hindu physicians, well educated, and from different parts of India. All agreed that cobras respond to some musical tones"
taken from: http://www.adam.com.au/bstett/BCobra94.htm
ken 00:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Accuracy of phytopharmacology
[edit]Regarding the addition -
- The technique of phytopharmacology, as practiced by Macht, has never been proven accurate by scientific experiment and is not based upon any accepted principles of modern biology
This seems a bit unclear - Macht's phytopharmacology clearly works in detecting gross effects of phytoxins, and similar systems are used today (e.g. in testing weedkillers). What is clearly unscientific is Macht's extrapolation of phytoxic effects to zootoxic effects - something which I feel is demonstrated in the preceding paragraphs. Adding the above sentence seems unnecessarily argumentative. MickWest 02:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll agree that the comment was vague, and is indirectly treated in preceding paragraphs. However, let's be honest here, Dr. Macht's greatest surviving legacy is his support of biblical inerrancy, and in particular his practice of phytopharmacology. Apart from this, his body of work is no more notable than any living professor of pharmacology. We both agree that Macht's use of phytopharmacology to predict zootoxicity is not grounded in scientific principle and unsupported by any later research. At best it is a case of unconscious agenda, at worst it is intellectual dishonesty. I don't propose to re-fight whether Macht was fraudulently trying to prove biblical inerrancy. However, I do think that the errancy of his own work needs to be explicitly noted and given due weight and focus, considering the biblical inerrancy and in particular biblical scientific foresight it is most often used to support. The Crow 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but can you write that in a Wikipedian manner? Macht is rather obscure, and his work has receeded into obscurity, so nobody has attempted to refute it, presumably because nobody has cited it, so there is no need to refute it. How can we comment directly on the validity if nobdy else has? Would that not constitute original research? MickWest 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, because I didn't write that his techniques are inaccurate. I wrote that they have not been proven to be accurate. The difference is subtle but important. It doesn't mean his assertions are false, however it does mean they can't be used to prove other assertions to be true. A quick walk through Google will show you, however, that Macht is most widely cited as if his assertions are proof of other things. Therefore I think it is illuminating and appropriate to mention this. The Crow 19:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sure, but can you write that in a Wikipedian manner? Macht is rather obscure, and his work has receeded into obscurity, so nobody has attempted to refute it, presumably because nobody has cited it, so there is no need to refute it. How can we comment directly on the validity if nobdy else has? Would that not constitute original research? MickWest 17:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll agree that the comment was vague, and is indirectly treated in preceding paragraphs. However, let's be honest here, Dr. Macht's greatest surviving legacy is his support of biblical inerrancy, and in particular his practice of phytopharmacology. Apart from this, his body of work is no more notable than any living professor of pharmacology. We both agree that Macht's use of phytopharmacology to predict zootoxicity is not grounded in scientific principle and unsupported by any later research. At best it is a case of unconscious agenda, at worst it is intellectual dishonesty. I don't propose to re-fight whether Macht was fraudulently trying to prove biblical inerrancy. However, I do think that the errancy of his own work needs to be explicitly noted and given due weight and focus, considering the biblical inerrancy and in particular biblical scientific foresight it is most often used to support. The Crow 15:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
References reversed
[edit]I don't know how to fix this.
In the Medicine in the Bible section the foot note on the bullet for Pharmacological Appreciation of References to Alcohol in the Hebrew Bible is #6 and points to the reference for An Experimental Pharmacological Appreciation of Leviticus XI and Deuteronomy XIV and vice versa. I can't figure out what is causing this. Can some other editor fix this? Pzavon 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)