Talk:Uroscopy

Merge?

The Uroscopy/Uromancy proposed merger was added in February 2010. Would someone who supports the merge provide a rationale? I tentatively oppose the merge because these seem like two distinct topics to me. Chuck (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The distinction between medieval magic and medieval science was thin at best. What a modern person might clearly see as a scientific analysis of urine and a superstitious custom would not have been so. Both were seen as objectives since clears guideline existed that taught what findings were healthy and what was not. Both were taught in medical schools. Analysis of urine (not always specific) was understood as one of the Galenic diagnostic procedures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.80.13 (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And one is directed to determining the health of the patient (no matter how wrong we know the conclusions therefrom to be today) and one is not, which is what I see as the fundamental difference. If there are citations (either modern or from that era) which blur the line by using "uroscopy" for determination of things beyond the patient's health, or, conversely, "uromancy" for determination of the patient's health, I might reconsider, but until then the distinction seems to be a clear one to me. Chuck (talk) 17:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree: one is about predicting the future at large, the other is about assessing a person's state of health. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 06:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)