Talk:Vitalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Wikiprojects

The Wikiproject banners at the top are not tangential categorization. They direct editors to more general fora for content help and advice, and draw new people to the article from the project. Do either of these or any other reason apply for any or all of the philosophy, psychology, medicine, chemistry, or biology wikiprojects? Vitalism is obsolete, and of purely historical interest. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Without passing judgment on whether Vitalism is obsolete or not, does it really matter to the projects themselves if a subject is only of historical interest to the project? Isn't up to the members of the project to decide which articles are of interest to them? Perhaps this discussion should take place at the individual project pages. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

WPMED generally accepts articles from the history of medicine -- and rates them as low importance. Myself, I'd remove psychology, chemistry, and biology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad latin

The etymology for "animal magnetism", third bullet point in section "Mesmerism", is regretably incorrect.

Specifically, "animal" as an adjective isn't derived from "animus", but from "anima", which is the proper latin term for a soul. Aside from a simple issue of mistake of gender, a worse error is in the given translation itself, since the article, as it is, claims that "animus" means "breath", which is an obvious confusion with another, etymologically unrelated latin term, "spiritus". Anima simply means soul, without any pneumatic connotations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.1.157 (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Vitalism|b00dwhwt}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Volta & Galvani

These names are immortalised in terms like Galvanised objects and Volts of electricity. Galvani had traced a link both ways between lightning and the animation of animals (frog legs). Volta showed that Galvani's "animal electricity" could be produced without the animal (any salty solution would suffice in its place). Shouldn't their debate be mentioned in this article? Cesiumfrog (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Do you have a few good sources for us to work from? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just leave this here...

http://bio.sunyorange.edu/updated2/creationism/CREATIONISM/not%20a%20science%20book/20%20Vitalism.htm 24.45.42.125 (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the detail of School of Athens, featuring Aristotle and Plato, have any business being here? Looks pretty tangential. --Christofurio (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Aristotle does get some mention, but you're right about the image. Still, I'd rather replace it than remove it. We could show a modern example of vitalism-based practice, such as chiropractic. What do you think? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I like Cesium Frog's fix! Good work. --Christofurio (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Section doesn't fit well in this article

this section in the article, while I can see how it has some relation to vitalism, well... it just seems kind of thrown in there, and does not relate very well to the rest of the article. I guess something should be done to improve it, or put it elsewhere in the article, or get rid of it altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.187.114 (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

The addition of the above category, which is contentious, was not discussed on this talk-page, so neither need its removal be. Vitalism is an obsolete scientific theory and it is categorised as such. Pasteur, Faraday, Driesch and many others were not pseudo-scientists. If any pseudo-scientific work is mentioned on this page it may be identified as such, but the theory as such may not be, because it was not. Redheylin (talk) 10:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is saying those scientists are 'pseudo'. The only person stating the category is contentious is you. The category itself was not recently added, but has been in place, uncontested, for ages. Restore your non-consensus changes please. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's in the Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience and Edzard Ernst uses this description. So, it wouldn't seem to be contentious at all.

• Edzard Ernst (9 September 2013). Healing, Hype or Harm?: A Critical Analysis of Complementary or Alternative Medicine. Andrews UK Limited. pp. 116–. ISBN 978-1-84540-711-7.
• William F. Williams (2 December 2013). Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience: From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Routledge. pp. 395–. ISBN 978-1-135-95522-9.

Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Have returned the category to what it was. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The Encylopedia of Pseudoscience is not an authoritative work on biology and the history of science, it's a work of popular entertainment, the use of which has been criticised on this page before, and its own wikipage says; "The Skeptical Inquirer review of the book says that, ".. errors, major and minor, can be found throughout.", "It reads more like a collection of opinions", "[needs to] contain material that is both correct and objective. Unfortunately, this tome fails on both counts." It is also noticeable that the present subject fails the authors' supposed criteria.

The Encyclopedia Britannica (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/630920/vitalism) says; //Vitalism, school of scientific thought—the germ of which dates from Aristotle—that attempts (in opposition to mechanism and organicism) to explain the nature of life as resulting from a vital force peculiar to living organisms and different from all other forces found outside living things. This force is held to control form and development and to direct the activities of the organism. Vitalism has lost prestige as the chemical and physical nature of more and more vital phenomena have been shown.// It does not appear to suggest that Aristotle, or any of his followers, was engaged in fakery, does it?

Rational wiki (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Vitalism) states that vitalist theories influence modern pseudoscientific therapies, yet still confirms that "reputable vitalists in biology" existed until recently and that "Vitalists could claim that organism metabolism involves vital force", and that even today, "Mind-body dualism ...is essentially a vitalist theory of mind and consciousness" that has not become entirely untenable. 14:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Webster's New World Dictionary defines "pseudo-science"; as "any system of methods, theories, etc. that presumes without warrant to have a scientific basis or application." The scientists in this article do not qualify. If any non- or-pseudo-science is quoted in the article, then a suitable authoritative source may be invoked to describe them as such. Redheylin (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And (while it will be difficult to find a serious work that states that vitalism is not ever pseudoscience) "Information and the Origin of Life" by Bernd-Olaf Küppers ([21]) states that "Vitalism, even in its pseudo-scientific form, has been shaken to the root by the findings of modern biology", from which it follows that there is, or certainly was, a genuine form that has certainly been shaken - he does not say destroyed even. These are all sensible sources, not comic-books that are even rejected by The Skeptical Enquirer. Redheylin (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

None of these sources disclaim the pseudoscience categorization, and in any case book reviews, dictionaries, other encyclopedia and OR are no substitute for following the view evident in secondary sources. I've just added one such source to the article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Already in the 19th century it was beginning to lose its luster and some considered it pseudoscience. In the 20th and 21st centuries only a minority, like yourself, would dare to suggest otherwise. Although we document their views, we don't let such minorities override mainstream scientific views.

Historically it's an obsolete theory, and now it's considered pseudoscience. There are many alternative medicine and New Age practices which still invoke it, and they too are pseudoscientific. It belongs in both categories. Your single minded devotion to changing the long standing status quo of this article is strongly contested and without merit. By including it in both categories, we respect the historical status and the current status. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorization is not a zero-sum game. There are clearly aspects of this article which are relevant to a categorization of the topic as pseudoscience. There are also aspects of this article which are more properly categorized as other things. That's why there are multiple categories. Categorizing an article as "pseudoscience" doesn't mean that everything mentioned in the article is pseudoscience. jps (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

" and now it's considered pseudoscience." - just bring forward a genuine biology or philosophy text-book that says this, please. Redheylin (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Your single minded devotion to changing the long standing status quo of this article is strongly contested and without merit." - I WROTE the bloody article - or at least did a thorough job on it, and I read the whole history, and the works of the major players, which is why I could. Please refrain from this long string of personal attacks. You write; "There are many alternative medicine and New Age practices which still invoke it" - good, call them pseudo, but there are many such that invoke "quantum" physics - that of itself does not invalidate QP itself, nor will it when, in the future, QP is subsumed into a newer paradigm. Redheylin (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a philosophy text which explicitly says that vitalism has been used as an epithet to refer to certain pseudoscientific gloss: [22]. jps (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"I WROTE the bloody article" ← Not really. BullRangifer is one of many who has contributed more text it seems. In any event, a WP:OWNership mentality isn't good. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not claiming ownership, I am rejecting the personal attack that I have interfered in a long-standing status quo. jps - this looks like a worthwhile text, but the relevant part is not visible on your URL - please add a quote, page number or better link, thanks. If it says flat out "vitalism is pseudo-science", that will be fine Redheylin (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

page 104: "In medicine and biology, vitalism has been seen as a philosophically-charged term, a pseudoscientific gloss that corrupted scientific practice and allowed concepts such as "spirit" and "soul" to creep into genuine understandings of the body." jps (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I added this earlier today. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I see it now - the book - which goes further than I would - says that this has sometimes been the case, that vitalism has been seen as a dubious, animistic idea - but then goes on "in the 20th century things have got a little more complex", and that some "vitalistic theories have had more explanatory power" and the idea has been "rehabilitated". So it is saying the "pseudoscience idea" is itself out of date, which surprises me, but there it is. Now, has anybody got an authoritative text on biology or history or philosophy of science, that says that vitalism is pseudoscience?, because the onus is on those who want to ADD the data, not me. Redheylin (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Rehabilitating an idea does not mean that it is suddenly no longer the purview of its normally considered state. We've met your challenge, it's time for you to let the argument drop. jps (talk) 17:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn in view of the tenor of the quoted text, I think you have quoted it misleadingly. Redheylin (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No, you have. For example saying the book says of vitalism that the idea has been "rehabilitated" when it in fact says "just when its significance was being rehabilitated, it lost its value as a coherent notion". This source is more than ample to justify the restored PS category staying put. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it says it has become so complex that it is no longer possible to say what "vitalism" means, or that it means a single thing, and certainly can not be simplistically opposed to mechanical theories, but that it remains "a useful heuristic". Very interesting book, but the piece you quote is being refuted. It quite clearly says that the "pseudo-scientific gloss" is no longer valid.Redheylin (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's totally beside the point. The book is a source that the term is so used. Whether it should be used in such a way is not Wikipedia's problem. We just report that it is used that way. jps (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

By the way, Alexbrn, I am troubled that you intervened as an admin warning me of edit wars, and have now taken an extreme stance in this debate. How did you come to happen along, may I ask? Redheylin (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not an admin. This article has been raised at WP:FT/N which I watch. I am not extreme :-) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, OK, sorry. So it is just a question of why you decided to take sides. You did not comment on that page, so I guess you just took someone else's word for my supposed "edit-warring". Never mind. I am used to such things. The thing is; the quoted source says that, "just at the moment that vitalism has been rehabilitated by its superior practical explanatory power, it has also ceased to be a single, dubious, animistic view that can be opposed to mechanism or treated as a "pseudo-scientific gloss", and that now the situation is that there are many barely related ideas that can be classed as vitalistic - things like free will, the hard problem of consciousness, certain medical interventions. So it is wrong to quote the essay in the way you have, and the addition of "pseudoscience" requires a clear, authoritative statement. A science book, to be brief. I do not need it. You need it if you want to include it. Redheylin (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• • Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.** OK? A science book. Redheylin (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw you had reverted to your preferred version twice, which is the start of edit warring. My softly-worded warning was just that, as edit warring can lead to sanctions. (You also called another editor a proxy, which might be frowned on if this got to the drama boards). I have no "side" here other than the side of the sources. I disagree with your intepretation of the "tenor" of the source I added - my addition is okay in my view, but more could be added ... from this source in general. There's some decidedly iffy sourcing in this article as it is. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I said so, and I think so. I also think that the same editor posted to "Fringe" purely to canvas action from pushers of a similar point of view, and I think so because those editors made no meaningful debate there, and were poor in ettiquette, to say the least, there and before. As I said, I am used to these things, and the only blessing is that such people are so generally ignorant of the subjects in question that most articles escape their attention. The source you have quoted quite clearly raises the word "pseudoscience" purely to reject it, and mentions "coherence" just to make clear that its influence has been multiple and various.

Now, what is the point of this? You just do not have any source adequate to the changes you wish to make in an article that is about science and the history and philosophy of science, not about dodgy healers or fake scientists. It is a waste of time. Please, just hold off until you find an authoritative text that puts your point of view. It is not "edit-warring" to remove improperly sourced or represented material. Redheylin (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the source only talks about the pseudoscientific nature of vitalism in order to reject the characterization is not the reading I get. It seems, in fact, that the source identifies that this is the prevailing view of the subject. Do you have an authoritative source which says that vitalism is generally not considered pseudoscientific? Because I haven't seen that yet. jps (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is silly to tag superseded views as pseudoscientific. There is nothing inherently pseudoscientific about vitalism, or flogiston theory etc - they are simply theories that have been proposed, tested and failed. It would be pseudoscientific to propose these theories today, because evidence is not against it but it wasnt when they were first proposed.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's silly unless there are proponents of the superseded views that have been identified as promoting the views pseudoscientifically. Are there current phlogiston proponents? There certainly are vitalists still about and they have been identified by reliable sources as promoting pseudoscience. Again, the categorization does not mean that the only relevant thing about a subject is its categorical inclusion. It just means that there is an aspect of the topic that is pseudoscientific. jps (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CAT "Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate. A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having"

In this case the categorisation is not seen as neutral by several editors and is clearly controversial. Editors have failed to show that reliable sources "commonly and consistently define the subject" as "pseudo". In fact, I have seen only claims of sources, and no action. Opinionated statements may not be stated as fact without attribution. This is a science page. One can not describe all science as "pseudo" on the grounds that "some research is fake or commercially-driven", but this is what the above argument implies should be done. I am not aware of any policy or guidance that says that "if anybody still credits, or pretends to credit any abandoned theory, then that theory becomes pseudo" - if you know of it, bring it forward, along with these legendary references. Redheylin (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

PS - Canter and Ernst do correctly say that broadly vitalistic therapies exist and are pseudo-scientific, and it is fine to include that view in the body of the text. However, overall, Canter's views, while hard-line, are inconsistent: whereas the title of the cited essay says "Vitalism and other pseudo-science", the text reads vitalism "has the merit at least of being honestly unscientific.... this is in sharp contrast with the insidious pseudoscientific theories of unproven theories." This is the final statement of the essay, so he can not be cited simply as saying "vitalism is pseudo-science", he is talking about vitalistic therapies in rather inexact and equivocal language that ought to be reflected if quoted. I must add that his grasp of the history of the subject is poor. Redheylin (talk) 02:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be what you are hanging your hat on. jps (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

the sources you bring support the categorisation as Pseudoscience. Well done. I agree. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

PS. I am not changing my user name to Roxy The Proxy either, but will ignore the rather silly personal attacks made in this thread. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Redheylin and User:Maunus: Pre-scientific doctrines cannot be construed as "pseudoscientific". -A1candidate 13:43, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

+ + + rushes off to remove pseudoscience categorisation of Flat Earth Theory based on A1c's flawed logic + + + -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! The repetition of a straw man argument won't work. No one is construing the "pre-scientific" aspects as pseudoscientific. Period. Stop attacking that straw man. It is not its historical role which is labeled as pseudoscientific, but the fact that there are still proponents (even on this page) in this day and age. Vitalism lives on as the pseudoscientific basis for various New Age and alternative medicine practices. Our sources are clear about that, and the category applies to them.

We use categories as an aid for readers, and this subject contains significant elements which are covered by several categories. The objections to the use of the label pseudoscience are nothing more than the allergic reactions of believers in pseudoscience who feel struck. Me thinks they doth protest too much. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Animism

Stahl's animism should probably be glossed or linked here somewhere. — LlywelynII 12:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Vital force and Science

This article is either extremely biased, or simply very out of date. Low light photography has shown that light streams off the finger tips of the thumb and first two fingers. There has been experiments conducted that do support vital force. The article is biased and appears to be written by people who are actively wanting to promote their own philosophy and try to venture that science has adequately answered this problem, rather than just offering a negative opinion. There has not been sufficient science undertaken to disprove this theory, rather there is just a distaste for it according to some people. This stance, that is adhering to an unproven negative, is very dangerous and is not at all scientific. Many people bandy around the term pseudoscience without really understanding what it is. The term was invented by Karl Popper to define psychoanalysis. The arguments for anything being a pseudoscience is very sketchy and not at all scientific in itself, but merely an opinion. Even though defining something as pseudoscience is unscientific it has proliferated by popular skeptics who make a living off of debunking. Unfortunately, skeptics are not scientists and are mostly simply looking for a way of making easy money by being skeptics and getting on TV and in Magazines for which they get paid. No science has really backed up anything that the skeptics say, but rather has ruined great segments of scientific investigation by "pseudoscientifically" labelling vast areas of human knowledge as pseudoscience.

Brian T. Johnston

Faint filaments of light do not equal Vitalism. The Body emits and absorbs a large variety of frequencies of light. That's why it's possible to -see- human bodies; they're coupled with the Electromagnetic Field, just like all the other stuff you see about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

At least some living things appear to have a non-physical force in them, which non-living things don't. This thing, or phenomenon of it, is called consciousness. Nobody knows where it comes from, whether it's real, whether it's primary or secondary, etc. and there are competing, respected theories on both sides of this topic. It's a hard problem. That's why it's called the Hard Problem of Consciousness. To the extent that vitalism simply acknowledges that some things are (or appear to be) conscious, while others do not, it's simply stating something that science has acknowledged for a long time. That idea, which is at the core of vitalism based on the article's opening, is not pseudo-scientific. Also, the above discussion is not relevant--filaments of light are physical, whereas vitalism posits the existence of something non-physical.

128.29.43.2 (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Change of pov, original research, misrepresentation of references

My edit was neutral because of the reasons listed under my talk page. GetResearchFunction (talk) 23:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "Issue with guy who calls every bit of naturopathy psuedoscience". [23]

You'll have to explain yourself much better. It all appears to be your own personal opinions that are the opposite of what the sources say. I suggest you revert yourself, then start discussing your most important concerns here that you feel are easiest to verify. --Ronz (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The article has been reverted to the version prior to the edits from GetResearchFunction.

If someone has concerns with the current content, a better approach was described at Talk:Naturopathy [24]:

If you identify a statement in the article which is incorrect, or you think a new statement is needed, then suggest it here. Do this in the form "paragraph X, please change to Y based on Z source". The sources must meet WP:RS and especially WP:MEDRS.

Other editors will review the sources and proposed changes to ensure they meet Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Some suggested sources

• Greco, M. (2005). On the vitality of vitalism. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(1), 15-27.
• Fraser, M., Kember, S., & Lury, C. (2005). Inventive life: Approaches to the new vitalism.
• Hein, H. (1972). The endurance of the mechanism—vitalism controversy. Journal of the History of Biology, 5(1), 159-188.
• Inagaki, K., & Hatano, G. (2004). Vitalistic causality in young children's naive biology. Trends in cognitive sciences, 8(8), 356-362.
• Miller, J. L., & Bartsch, K. (1997). The development of biological explanation: Are children vitalists?. Developmental psychology, 33(1), 156.
• Kirschner, Marc, John Gerhart, and Tim Mitchison. "Molecular “vitalism”." Cell 100, no. 1 (2000): 79-88.
• Normandin, S., & Wolfe, C. T. (2013). Vitalism and the scientific image: an introduction. In Vitalism and the Scientific Image in Post-Enlightenment Life Science, 1800-2010 (pp. 1-15). Springer Netherlands.
• Rolf Sattler. 2012. Biophilosophy: Analytic and Holistic Perspectives. Springer Science & Business Media

-- ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

POV

I do honestly find that it shouldn't be considered "pseudoscience," but instead "an alternative formulation." While some doctors do consider things like qi "nonsensical," the idea of an energy system still follows Hippocrates' foundations of Western Medicine, as in (paraphrased) "all disorders and diseases have a cause." Negative energy can be a symptom of an illness rather often, as your organs can be damaged by illnesses. I am not a supporter of stuff like the "Time Cube" nonsense, but I honestly do support naturopathy, and I would recommend taking their side of the debate into consideration. In addition, please do not describe groups as a cult, and think before you type. Vitalism is also a philosophy, so please do not list something as pseudoscience just because it is not well understood by many people. In addition, urea being produced from inorganic compounds is also NOT proper counter-evidence to the existence of life energy or the energy system. It is only counter-evidence to the belief that creatures operated under different principles physically, not metaphysically. --SliverWind (talk)

Fixed lead. --SliverWind (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In addition, I fixed the image description so that it is more neutral. --SliverWind (talk) 00:13, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for writing here. You seem to have some familiarity with Wikipedia, so perhaps you know that how people feel about stuff doesn't matter here, and has no place on an article Talk page. (Please read WP:TPG). If you want to introduce new sources, or believe that any of the sources used in the article are poor, or that content in the article doesn't accurately summarize the source cited, that is all good stuff - discussion is driven solely by sources and the policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 06:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct. However, I propose a rewrite containing an equal amount of pro-vitalism sources and anti-vitalism sources should be used. Sorry for edit warring, but I tried to fix an article from a notoriously biased area of the wiki. While Dr. Mercola's site is not peer-reviewed nor WP:MEDRS, there are other sites that are peer-reviewed, WP:MEDRS and pro-vitalism. Also, the definition that is used nowadays for vitalism is "a theory that states that all animals and plants (including humans) have an energy system containing life energy." --SliverWind (talk) 06:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We must avoid WP:GEVAL. No decent source is "pro-vitalism" by definition, as it's a load of hooey. Alexbrn (talk) 07:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

SilverWind please make some specific proposal. I won't respond further to vague notions. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand, Alexbrn and Jytdog, but sir Alexbrn, a "load of hooey" is strictly not neutral, period and is completely subjective and thus unusable on Wikipedia for neutrality reasons, again. It should be roughly equal amounts, following WP:MEDRS and WP:GEVAL very carefully, while staying neutral. Since governments can be easily lobbied into being incredibly stupid at times, we mustn't use government resources. Plus, the FDA and CDC are not peer-reviewed, but instead reviewed by the publisher of the study. Nice job, FDA. --SliverWind (talk) 03:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

What sources would you recommend that can't be roughly as easily lobbied into being incredibly stupid at times? Also, editors like you and Alexbrn don´t have to be neutral (we all have an opinion on many things), but what we put in the article should follow WP:NPOV, which is not the same as many meanings of the word "neutral". Alexbrn do not intend to put "a load of hooey" in the article (well, unless he find a superstar doctor reported saying it, but probably not even then), and he can express the sentiment on the talkpage if he wishes. Sentiments like "Vitalist X is responsible for the death of babies" is another matter. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is incorrect to stat that vitalism is a scientific hypothesis as the main definition of this topic (incorrect in the sense of not being supported by sources). It is more like a philosophical view (and is treated as such in most of the sources I am familiar with), often it is defined as "a doctrine". From this philosophical position testable hypotheses can be derived, but that is only relevant for those proponents of vitalism who consider their philosophical position open to empirical inquiry rather than a matter of belief - that is not the case for all proponents of vitalism (for example several religious systems can be understood as forms of vitalism).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, ·maunus. However, certain therapies that rely on vitalism have been known to cure illnesses very easily, most notably homeopathy. It is also often considered a valid path among naturopaths and has a bit of a following among some normal doctors as well. In addition, modern medicine has its roots in vitalism, to a degree, as Hippocrates himself based his four humors hypothesis off of vitalism to a moderate degree. In general, if vitalism wasn't a plausible theory in itself that followed physics and quantum mechanics, it wouldn't be practiced nearly as much, and homeopathy wouldn't be so commonplace. In addition, saying it's "a load of hooey" is a sign of editorial bias. --SliverWind (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I certainly disagree with the notion that homeopathy has ever cured anyone, or that modern medicine has its roots in vitalism - rather modern medicine emerges as medicine broke with vitalism in favor of evidence based practice. But vitalism itself is not homeopathy, vitalism is the philosophical stance that life cannot be reduced to the mechanics of the chemistry and physics - and it is as such a metaphysical stance. It is entirely possible to be hold vitalist views and still consider homeopathy a "load of hooey". ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Relationship to emergentism

Although I acknowledge the value of presenting arguments about the status of emergentism, this article does not seem the appropriate place in which to do that.

First of all, there is by no means a consensus that emergentism is a form of vitalism, and in fact early 20th-century writers who popularized it (e.g. Alexander and Morgan) were explicit in rejecting vitalism. For example...

...if vitalism connote anything of the nature of Entelechy or Elan -- any insertion into the physico-chemical evolution of an alien influence which must be invoked to explain the phenomena of life -- then, so far from this being implied, it is explicitly rejected under the concept of emergent evolution. (Morgan, Emergent Evolution 1931)

If emergentism were clearly an example of vitalism, then it would be appropriate to include it in this article. Since this is not necessarily the case, I would advocate moving this section into the Emergence article. After all, the question "is emergentism a form of vitalism?" has far more to do with the former than the latter.

Any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pugettia (talk • contribs) 19:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the section gives a reasonable account of the "fall" of vitalism and of the new ideas that replaced it. Possibly the header is wrong, but the message that emergence began finally to dispense with the "alien influence" of a "life force" at the time, while the term "vitalism" became disparaged as too wedded to the latter view is, I think, an important part of the article. Please note the "if" at the beginning of your quote. Redheylin (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

@Jytdog: this discussion has been going on a long time, and has I think reached a reasonable compromise. Calling it all "hippy bullshit" is not specially helpful as there are serious reasons for the presence of the section. The 'Emergentism' section is sensibly cited to very sober sources and discussed in the same encyclopedic tone: "see "Emergent Properties" in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. online at Stanford University for explicit discussion; briefly, some philosophers see emergentism as midway between traditional spiritual vitalism and mechanistic reductionism; others argue that, structurally, emergentism is equivalent to vitalism. See also Emmeche C (2001) Does a robot have an Umwelt? Semiotica 134: 653–693 [25]</ref> According to Emmeche et al. (1997)". On "old" sources, our maxim must be "Once notable, always notable", as notability is not temporary. On the substance of the section, the discussion is clearly on the connection between vitalism and emergence, and there certainly is one, if only to say that emergence helped to kill off vitalism in science: an extremely un-hippy un-bullshitty message. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vitalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511191629/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhicontrib2.cgi?id=dv3-69 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhicontrib2.cgi?id=dv3-69
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303202347/http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Medicine/Biofield.html to http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Medicine/Biofield.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Nietzsche

Nietzsche should be added as an important philosopher of Vitalism in the 19th century. In addition, Gilles Deleuze's works on both Spinoza and Bergson deserve recognition here. I will suggest some particular edits with concrete examples when I have time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverliebt (talk • contribs) 21:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine sidebar

[26] I don't know what's common practice but putting an incidental sidebar (with a bad reputation) at the very top can be a bad first impression overriding the body of articles. The Bertrand Russel quote, "... we must either succeed in producing living matter artificially, or we must find the reasons why this is impossible" establishes there is science/philosophy here even today, and that dismissing it looks like premature triumphalism, which is maybe the overriding tone of this article as it stands --184.21.192.44 (talk) 04:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

So, you want one sentence by Russell and your own conclusions from it to be the ultimate arbiter. But that that is not how Wikipedia works. Our arbiter is the totality of reliable sources, and they regard vitalism as a relic which is only taken seriously by quacks and religious nuts nowadays. Alternative medicine is its place now, whether you like it or not. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand. It's a philosophical postulate, or scientific hypothesis, which would be relevant to science if there were any practical way to demonstrate anything about it (like so many things) one way or other ... or if it would make any difference, much like the question of free will. The only interesting thing about it is whether or not it would work to build an animal with no living materials, from scratch, and see if it comes to life or not. Whether such a creature is conscious can't be found out because there's no objective criteria, but whether or not it can be made is an open question until technology reaches that point, and it would remain a baffling conundrum if it turned out to be beyond the reach of technology, but you can't simply pronounce something is the case because "you want it to be the case" without any evidence. That's not how science or philosophy works, which is what that BR quote is about --75.106.108.191 (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

After two sentences, I got too bored to continue reading. But I forced myself, and should not have, because it got even more boring.

Wikipedia is not interested in your thoughts, only in reliable sources that actually talk about the subject of the article. Read WP:SOAPBOX, then WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.

Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

"Wikipedia’s policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won’t do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of 'true scientific discourse'. It isn’t.[27] [28] [29] [30]"

So yes, we are biased.

We are biased towards science and biased against pseudoscience.
We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
We are biased towards evolution, and biased against young earth creationism.
We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change.

References

-Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Non-living Entities

In what world does a non-living Entity exist? Ivandlcperez (talk) 05:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

vis vitalis

Couldn't find "vis vitalis" on en.wikipedia, so added vis vitalis redir. This is the term that was used for "vital force" in many european countries. (confirmed by a quick check under "other languages") --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Malpighi and Bergson are alternative medicines practicioners?

Imagine somebody who don't know Malpighi and Bergoson and learn about them for the first time on this page. I think that the problem is selfevident... no? Maybe the best label could be Superseded? Eugenio.orsi (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Malpighi is described as a doctor with a link to Marcello Malpighi. Nobody called "Bergoson" is mentioned in this article. Bon courage (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Close minded explanation

Call me naive, but I felt the criticisms of the topic of vital energy far outweighed the subjective experiences of most people. Despite the fact that current science cannot experimentally prove what it is that gives life, every one of us experiences on an inherent level what most would call some type of energy flowing within us. I promote being critical, but the article felt more like it was proving a point vs giving an explanation on what we observe as what gives us life as conscious beings. 2601:204:C001:3750:4D16:90EE:876D:4E24 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, science outweighs subjective experiences. That is how Wikipedia works. If you want to change something, you will need reliable sources. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Actaullay science outweight subjective experience if and only if it has a scintific image to offer. Since on what is life we don't have one, vitalism it's not entairly discredit. The problem of vitalism is that it's not even wrong, as it's a circlular explanation. Eugenio.orsi (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources? This is not a forum. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Not sure about equating anti-vitalism and mechanical reduction

After the first sentence the lede of this article equates vitalism with the view that life is irreducible to mechanism. But that's too general: many (I would venture most) philosophers of science and biology today think that biological explanations are not reducible to mechanical ones because function-concepts are categorically different than mechanism-concepts. But there are plenty of ways to be pro-science and a materialist without buying the most extreme reduction position (the literature here on reduction and emergence is obviously immense and very complicated).

I would propose clarifying the lede by putting vitalism in terms of positing "non-natural" rather than "non-mechanistic" entities. The opening sentence differentiates claims about a "non-physical element" from claims that organisms "are governed by different principles than are inanimate things." But then the rest of the lede conflates these two different claims. The former is what is discredited, the latter is at the very least an active topic of scientific and philosophical debate. AtavisticPillow (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-European Vitalism

Are there any good sources for non-European vitalism? This page is written primarily from an eurocentric perspective. Might be a good idea to expand. Euglenos sandara (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV

No scientist believes that biological processes are directly reducible to chemical or physical processes, so the main claim and the way the whole article frames vitalism is unacademic - to say the least. Furthermore, there are no references to the current debate and conspicuously absent are contributions from the fields of biosemiotics or any reference to von Uexküll or Rose. In short, the article is not informative and does not meet Wikipedia standards. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing thosse things out. Since you seem quite knowledgeable about vitalism why not try to fix some of these things yourself? Thank you. The Blue Rider 11:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

IP, please read the information related to pseudo-scientific articles at the top of this page as well as WP:FRINGE. Do you have a source for your statement "No scientist believes that biological processes are directly reducible to chemical or physical processes"? Because it looks to me that the exact opposite is actually true. In any event, since you have not provided a single source to justify the NPOV tag on the article, I will remove it. In the future, please propose specific changes and always provide sources to back them up. --McSly (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

So I think the OP has a point here but we have to be cautious of how we characterize things. On the one hand, very few scientists (or virtually none) believe that biological processes are not made up of underlying chemical and physical processes. But as far as I am aware, it is very much an open question whether biological organisms are directly reducible to those processes in our best scientific explanations. This is just to make the banal point that biology is not chemistry or physics; it has its own concepts and explanations, many of which incorporate insights from physics and especially chemistry, but are unique to the biological level. An example would be a notion like "homeostasis," which seems to be something that occurs in a full-fledged way only at very high levels of biological organization, not amid isolated chemical or physical processes alone.

The article here conflates the open scientific/philosophical questions of reductionism and emergence, as well as the potential limits to mechanical modes of explanation in the biological sphere, with vitalism as positing non-natural entities. That is a problem. AtavisticPillow (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)