Talk:Kazem Sadegh-Zadeh

message: I recently reviewed SZ's article, it appears biased in the presentation of SZ's achievement and impact in the field of "philosophy of medicine". While it is true that SZ has conducted a significant amount of research and the HAPM is an extensive analysis of medical philosophy, he is not well known outside what I assume is continental europe. He is a rather obscure figure. He has published 30 articles in his career and while may created a large body of work, it is simply not well read. Nancy Cartwright or Ian Hacking are philosophers who have made massive contributions to philosophy of medicine and social sciences yet their wikipedia pages ares smaller; SZ's page is at a minimum, gratuitus, at worst, problematically long. The language used in this article should present SZ in a more neutral light, avoiding overstating the importance of SZ in contemporary medicine. Moreover, this article is primarily based on original research, and sourced directly from either autobiographies or from SZ's published work; there are insufficient references to third party articles or even news articles. This article should be reduced to stub length until there is significantly more non-autobiographical sources, or deleted entirely. 
Does anyone have any other opinions? \Ellemrei (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral point of view and other issues in Sadegh-Zadeh's article 

message: SZ is one of the pioneers in the philosophy of medicine in Europe and the founder of the analytic philosophy of medicine.  He is the founding editor of the international journal Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics that has enormously advanced the fields of philosophy of medicine and medical ethics, and in addition, he is the founding editor of the international journal Artificial Intelligence in Medicine that is the leading journal in this field.  That you, Mr. or Mrs. Ellemrei, have not been aware of him until now does not speak against him, but conversely against you.  He is well known internationally in the world of the philosophy of medicine, and also of the entire medicine.  Please refer to the Foreword by the eminent philosopher of medicine H. Tristram Engelhardt, Jr., in SZ’s Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine.  As regards the great philosophers of science Nancy Cartwright and Ian Hacking:  Could you please be so kind to indicate any work by these two scholars on any topic specifically in the philosophy of medicine (and not in the philosophy of biology, or of natural sciences, or of science in general)?  It is plainly false to maintain, as you do, that they have made massive contributions to the philosophy of medicine.  If you find that their Wikipedia pages are smaller than SZ’s page, why not try to augment them as they deserve it instead of doing the opposite by destroying another bio-ergographical page simply because, for whatever reason, you don’t like it?  This would be vandalism due to a misunderstanding of Wikipedia’s mission and of the art of scientific bio-ergography. (GWroth, 25 May 2016)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by GWroth (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Against vandalism in Wikipedia 

message: I am responding to several of the claims that you have made. I will be avoiding addressing you and will focus on this claims being made.
First, it is claimed that he is the founder of the field of analytic philosophy of medicine a pioneer of it. I am unsure of the basis of this claim, do you have secondary sources for this; I attempted several search strategies to look for secondary sources (other than those posted on his own website or on a publisher's website or in his own material). I was unable to find any supporting this claim, could you please post references supporting his position as "founding the analytic philosophy of medicine"? I think not that the evidence presented in the forward is untrue or biased but that it requires caution in interpretation. I examined his publication record and his most cited article was published in the year 2000 with ~100 citations, this is a significant amount however, in comparison to some of other significant philsophers e.g. Christopher Boorse and his highly influential "Health as a theoretical concept" has over 1000 citations and was published in 1977, SZ's impact is comparatively much smaller and more limited to a smaller field, such as logic in medicine or computer science and medicine. 
Please refer to Ian Hackingès "Mad Travelers: Reflections on the Reality of Transient Mental Illnesses" (1998) 514 citations
I Hacking "Rewriting the Soul Multiple Personality and the Sciences of Memory" (1997) 277 citations
Nancy Cartwright "Are RCTs the gold standard?" (2007) 300 citations 
C Boorse "On the distinction between disease and illness" (1975) 847 citations 
SZ's "Handbook of Analytic Philosophy of Medicine" (2012) 52 citations
SZ's "Foundations of clinical praxiology part I: The relativity of medical diagnosis" (Published in his own journal) (1980) 20 citations (of the 20 citations 7 are self-citations)
The entire body of SZ's work has been cited a total of 300 times based off of his scopus report. 
Second, SZ's influence is noted and well respected within the specific intersections between AI, logic, computer science, philosophy of medicine. SZ has made a niche and been very successful within it. That it not in question. The issue is more that the claims that are made in the wikipedia article are editorial or opinion rather than supported by secondary sources. That he is a pioneer in the field remains to be demonstrated adequately by independent 3rd party sources. The majority of papers that are published by KZ were published in KZ's own journals. 
The article should not necessarily be deleted, however the claims should be less clearly opinions and incorporate greater numbers of third party secondary sources. However, until the issues I have raised regarding this article please refrain from removing the "multiple issues" tag I have placed on the page, this is to alert readers that the content of the page is contested and allow them to make a critical evaluation of both perspectives on the page. Once the dispute regarding the page has been resolved we will then be able to remove the multiple issues tag. 
As a postscript. This is not a personal attack on SZ or on yourself GWroth, rather, the wording in the article the way it is currently present is misleading. In order for it to present SZ in a more balanced light with regards to his impact on the field of philosophy of medicine significant revision is required. I will begin suggesting edits and working on the page soonish.
Best,
Ellemrei (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Response to "Against Vandalism in Wikipedia" 

message: I am writing, in Brazil, my thesis on KSZ’s theory of clinical practice. Based on my knowledge of his works, I can confirm that analytic philosophy of medicine has originated with him. He has coined the label in his early publication in 1970: "The organism as a cyclic-causal system. In: Ärztekolloquium 1970, No. 1, pp. 26-39 (in German, with an English abstract). Department of Clinical Neurophysiology, University of Göttingen." There, on page 26, he defines the field and explains the reasons why the received philosophy of medicine should be replaced with, or at least augmented by, analytic philosophy of medicine. His definition of the field is restated in terms of the aims and scope of his journal Metamedicine, today called Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, first published in its inaugural issue in 1980 and repeated in each issue since. See also his editorial in the same place in 1980 where he expressly devotes the journal to analytic philosophy of medicine. A synoptic view of this history may be found in the short chapter 28, The Doubter, in his HAPM/2015, pp. 885-888. One can witness the original making of the analytic philosophy of medicine by KSZ in these historical documents and the coinage of the label by him in 1970. In the entire history of science analytic philosophy of medicine is associated with no other name than with his. You may verify this observation by searching the Internet and other archives. Regarding the adjudication of KSZ’s impact, be cautious to avoid injustice. I think the impact of an original scholar may sometimes be difficult, and even impossible, to judge during her lifetime due to the insusceptibility of her contemporaries. To give an example, imagine we were contemporaries of Sir Isaac Newton. Which measures would have we applied to judge his Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica to estimate its impact that it has achieved not until decades after his death? Such is the fate of all pathfinders who are ahead of their time. I read an interview with KSZ a few years ago in a Spanish publication where he said that writing his book HAPM took him ten years. After a glance over this great tome you will concede that reading and understanding it (by medical audience at whom it is targeted) will require at least as much time as he has needed to write it – should they be capable of studying and comprehending it at all.
External evidence that KSZ is the creator of analytic philosophy of medicine may be found in publications by the historian of science Rudolf Seising, for example, in:
Seising 1
Seising 2
Seising 3
Seising 4
Eduarda.Ortega  —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: RE history of the analytic philosophy of medicine