Talk:Vitalism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

RFC

I made an application for RfC. [25]. Its an RfC on Steth specifically, but it involves other editors, to be fair. Feel free to comment. KrishnaVindaloo 03:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

citation verification

"it is not easy to distinguish objectively between vitalism and contemporary scientific theories of complex systems, as explicitly recognized in a review entitled Molecular 'vitalism' published in Cell" <-- please provide the exact quote from this article that explicitly says it is not easy to distinguish objectively between vitalism and a contemporary scientific theory. --JWSchmidt 13:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi JWSchmidt. Sorry, no such line, quote, or similar quote exists in that paper. Its just one WP editor's interpretation of the paper. The paper is about our understanding of biochemistry being improved by genome research and speculative discussion on complex metabolic pathways, and a last wistful look at the vitalism of the early 20th century. It uses vitalism in inverted commas, and states explicitly that "In a light-hearted, millennial vein we might call research into this kind of integrated cell and organismal physiology “molecular vitalism.”KrishnaVindaloo 02:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that the authors of Molecular “Vitalism” have any great sympathy for the idea that there might be something beyond chemistry required to account for the behavior of living systems. Care needs to be taken in suggesting that there are contemporary scientific theories that are hard to distinguish from vitalism. I agree that if you include fringe scientific theories and adopt an unconventional definition of vitalism then you do make it difficult to distinguish between vitalism and some fringe theories of complex systems. However, I do not think that is a point made by the cited article. The article by Kirschner, Gerhart and Mitchison does make the point that if we really want to understand the "vital" nature of living things then we have to move beyond simplistic approaches that rely too heavily on genomics. They are calling for renewed efforts to discover and understand molecular processes that provide living systems with self-organization. They note that our intuitions (that are often based on conventional macroscopic machines) can mislead us when we study living systems where events at the level of individual molecules are important. As I interpret the article, this does not indicate any sympathy for vitalism beyond their acknowledgement of the fact that our ignorance of molecular processes in living systems has always been the source of a tendency towards doubt about the power of mechanism to account fully for the behavior of living things. --JWSchmidt 17:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure JWSchmidt. Vitalism, as the majority know it, is not what the article is promoting. Its just a catchy article for saying "hey, lets be optimistic about science in the new millenium". We can untangle complicated stuff. KrishnaVindaloo 06:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

citation required

This claim was in the section above the table of contents: "In the Western tradition, these vital forces were identified as the humours". This idea is not discussed in the remaining sections of the article. --JWSchmidt 13:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, humours is only one term. In the West there are and have been many, e.g. Awen (Druidry), energies, odic force, and so on. I believe it could be placed as a collection of others. I seem to remember such a list existing on the qi or similar article. KrishnaVindaloo 02:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be more diplomatic to say something like, "Within the Western tradition, vitalists have sometimes identified vital force(s) with one or several of the humours". Here is one source that discusses some of the complexity of how people thought about blood and vital force: Early Blood Chemistry in Britain and France. Noel G. Coley says that blood, "was generally thought to possess special vital properties". Coley goes on to discuss early work that eventually revealed chemical processes involved in blood function. --JWSchmidt 16:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, JWSchmidt. I will have a look for more info on that also. Looks like your line will work pretty well. KrishnaVindaloo 06:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV pushing again

Hi all. There had been no improvements to the POV pushing OR lines that were placed in the article, so I removed or placed them in more appropriate areas of the article. If anyone finds any other similar OR lines, please feel free to delete or re-arrange. KrishnaVindaloo 07:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished business

Here I’m placing extracts from relevant discussions on Talk pages (mine and JWS). I’m clearing my User page now as I’m leaving WP

• "the issue is whether emergence (emergent behaviours) are vitalism without the mysticism. Vitalism, as used by the great vitalists (Pasteur, Driesch, Reid, Freud, Jung etc) disavowed the mystic connotations but used the terms as metaphors for things we did not understand in reductionist terms; they generally weren't denying the existence of a physico chemical basis of phenomena, only asserting that there was then no such explanantion."

• "In the case of the modern ideas about "emergence", there are two camps who prefer to use the word in two different ways. One way of using the term "emergence" just emphasizes that fact that we have a hard time predicting the behavior of certain complex systems and that "higher order" phenomena can emerge unpredictably from such systems. Other people suggest that if we cannot give a detailed mechanistic account of an emergent phenomenon then maybe the phenomenon cannot have a mechanistic basis. Some people who adopt the later position start with a state of ignorance about mechanism and magnify it into support for their belief that a mechanism does not exist."

• "....the Sokal article....it is not the best source for dealing with vitalism; it only uses the term in a footnote. It was the first source I found to support an unsourced statement in the vitalism article. --JWSchmidt 22:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)”

• “(subsequent note by Gleng to JWS; The Sokal footnote uses as its authority Mayr, writing in 1982 before the (renewed) growth of interest in emergent behaviours; in later years his views on vitalism were rather different I think, as reflected in the quote.)”

• “Re: 3 requested citations (note to JWS)

The first sentence predates my involvement, and I didn't question it seeing it as uncontroversial. Maybe the editorial, Nat Biotechnol. 2004 Oct;22(10):1191 would do? The psychology reference related back to what had previously said in the article, and the relevant citation was [26]. This citation displays the controversy but actually presents an anti vitalist view (..the box to the article declares that it represents a POV opposite to others presented at the meeting; perhaps this reference should be flagged with the note that its views were a minority view.) On emergence etc, again the sentence refers back to things that existed/exist in the article.”

• “The four humours go back to Alcmaeon of Croton and Empodecles. Lamarck is probably also worth mention.” (Alcmaeon of Croton, Empodecles, Lamarck and Aristotle are all among the "1000 top scientists").

• On sources: I questioned elsewhere

a) whether a Penn state sophomore writing for an in-house undergraduate journal [27] is a notable source of opinion [28]

b) whether a popular book entitled “Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience, from Alien abductions to Zone Therapy” is an appropriate source of fact anywhere in WP. (see [29] for a review of it from a skeptical perspective; note the last sentence of that review in particular).

The editorial in Nature Biotechnology begins with a quote from Sydney Brenner "In one way, you could say all the genetic and molecular biological work of the last 60 years could be considered a long interlude...We have come full circle—back to the problems left behind unsolved. How does a wounded organism regenerate exactly the same structure it had before? How does the egg form the organism? In the next 25 years, we are going to have to teach biologists another language...I don't know what it's called yet; nobody knows..."

and goes on to say

Delivered over 30 years ago, Brenner's cautionary words resound even more forcefully today. Although we may now have a term, 'systems biology,' for his 'language' (the focus of this issue), the central problem remains: how to transform molecular knowledge into an understanding of complex phenomena in cells, tissues, organs and organisms? In the intervening decades, we have become spectacularly successful at creating inventories of genes, proteins and metabolites, but remained spectacularly average at pinpointing key points for medical intervention in disease pathways or determining which recombinant gene(s) to add to generate a complex trait. There is no clear connection between molecular description and such 'systems' phenomena.

Gleng 09:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Cause and effect of Driesch

I'm just wondering how justified it is to essentialy claim that Driesch's decline in reputation was a direct result of being a vitalist. The cite is of the opinion that it is, but I'm not sure if it could be considered entirely authoritive on this exact topic, as it doesn't seem to have much to reference that statement. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just worried about our certainty given the previous wording. If it could be substantiated from anouther source that would be grand. In the meantime I've reworded it so that the switch to vitalism and decline in reputation are juxtaposed, but not exclicately linked. Jefffire 16:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point Jefffire. I'll see if I can come up with something more substantial on Driesch. I think your adjustments are for the better. KrishnaVindaloo 07:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Opinions of

I doubt Dennett repeated the word "some" in the quote of his about elan vital. Some some typo, most likely. Accordingly, I just deleted the duplicate. In general about the section, though: Since the opinions here are all negative, shouldn't the section be called something more appropriate, like "Critics of...."? --Christofurio 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Christofurio. Good suggestion. I think Fyslee made a reasonable alteration to the opinions section. KrishnaVindaloo 10:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Relation to emergentism

I like that title for that section. Thanks, KV. --Dematt 01:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

There was a jumbled mess of thrust and parry in the criticism section obviously argued by a vitalism proponent against the criticism. The main thrust is that where vitalism has been able to be subject to tests and has been tested it is falsified, but nonetheless, there exist supporters of vitalism which retain belief in these aspects despite falsification in a fashion that is essentially a pseudoscientific rejection of falsifiability. This makes those features of vitalism essentially "unfalsifiable" in that the supporters keep moving the testability bar in order to maintain their belief (a hallmark of pseudoscience). --ScienceApologist 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. This type of stubborn retention of scientifically discarded beliefs is at the heart of the the true believer syndrome. -- Fyslee 06:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thanks SA. I also removed a lot of Glengs old OR from the relation to emergentism section. Emergentism is associated with vitalism, but only in that some researchers say that emergentism sometimes goes the way of vitalism in that it works against the scientific method and objective measures, and moves towards postmodern new age belief systems. KrishnaVindaloo 16:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And this was well referenced. Not sure why it shouldn't be in the article. The discussion is certainly relevant to vitalism. Maybe just some copy edits, but otherwise okay. --Dematt 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Dematt. Check out the OR you just committed. There is no reliable mention of vitalism in the sources you presented. It is just your reiteration of Gleng's OR. You also deleted the actual explanation for how the vitalism term was being used (in a lighthearted manner). If you are going to argue your point, you will most likely need to argue black is white, and the toothfairy will take all my teeth if I sleep with my head under the pillow. KrishnaVindaloo 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Versions of Vitalism table

Versions of Vitalism
Source	Specific term
Ancient Egypt	Ankh
Ancient Greece	Pneuma
Anthroposophical medicine	Formative force, ether body, astral body
Ayurvedic medicine (Hindu)	Prana
Chiropractic	Innate intelligence
Druidry	Awen
Energy medicine	Energy body, aura, Kirlian effect, etc.
Homeopathy	Vital energy
Magnetic healing (Mesmerism)	Animal magnetism
Naturopathy	Vis Medicatrix Naturae
Primitive medicine	Mana, orenda, tane, gana, sila, oki, etc.
Radiesthesia/Medical	Dowsing Radiation
Reichian psychotherapy	Orgone energy
Scientology	Life force
Therapeutic touch	Prana
Traditional Chinese Medicine/Taoism	Chi, Qi, Ki (Qi Gong "Master" healers)
Wicca (ancient fertility religion)	Unspecified (use "pranic healing" ritual)

This table isn't perfect yet, but let's work on it. I've been working on it for awhile. It's a recreation of something I found here. It was probably made by Dr. William Jarvis (now retired), who is - along with Stephen Barrett - one of the world's leading experts on quackery and health fraud. We can adapt and add to this table, using wording that is easily wikilinked. It will be a great addition to the article.

Some headings need centering, and I'm not sure if the other contents should be centered or left-aligned. -- Fyslee 20:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Are you married to the idea of "alleged" in the header column?
2. I am concerned that the list is an oversimplification that does not allow for NPOV again.

--Dematt 02:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If another word can serve the same purpose, then propose it. We can't state as fact something that is only believed, but not proven, to be true. Such lists are always oversimplifications. That is their strength. They quickly list up all the highlights and if necessary they can be discussed in detail, although if the list is properly worded and wikilinked, it shouldn't be necessary to do very much of that. People can just hop over to the relevant article if they want to learn more about it. The list can be introduced with a paragraph explaining its limitations. I can imagine that it is also possible to add refs to items in the list. It might be better if it is formatted with left align to allow for more text in each box. -- Fyslee 05:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing can be proven. Consider that it is you who can't state as fact something you don't believe to be true. This is a major symptom of what is preventing you from acheiving NPOV.

Alleged violates NPOV for it is a loaded word. I am quite certain that this article already makes it abundantly clear that we are dealing in theory. The point is made. If we decide to include this table, the right column should just be labelled: Life Force. No alleged and certainly no "condescending" quotation marks. That is NPOV.

As for the chart itself, I think it is very deceptive. It claims to be a chart of Vitalistic Healing Systems... but included are things that aren't healing systems at all. "Ancient Greece"? "Ancient Egypt"? "Primitive medicine"? "Wicca"? These things would have to go (as I think their only purpose are to negatively group the healing systems with older thinking (dead religions and failed civilizations). While "vitalism" certainly may have roots in ancient thinking, if this chart is going to approach the threshold of Wikcepability, it should only list Modern vitalistic healing systems (that are actual healing systems - not religions or cultures) in a very NPOV fashion. Levine2112 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. Are you trying to solve a problem, or are you just trying to boot the table? I will make some really easy adjustments. KrishnaVindaloo 11:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to point out a NPOV problem with the table. Judging by your solution, I see my point was understood. Thanks! Levine2112 17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh! You beat me to it! Good changes that avoid problems. Another thing that might make the table more useful would be to place the various sources in chronological order (approximately). This way the table becomes a historical study of the subject. The current order places sources in an arbitrary order coincidentally determined by their alphabetical order, which removes the usefulness of looking at any historical relationships or other historical placements of subjects. That kind of information is useful. Some ideas are very old, while others are of newer date. Some are indebted to each other and others aren't. This article should cover the whole subject from past to present, not just current usage, and the table should do it as well. -- Fyslee 14:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It could work. However, if we include things from the beginning of time, how do we put a name to the life force concepts of Plato and his dualism and Descartes and his Cartesian dualism, etc. etc..? I have a feeling we would all learn something, but would we would have to be careful about creating OR while doing so? It could be interesting. --Dematt 16:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's just do the best we can. The table, just like articles, is never finished. Needless to say the word "vitalism" doesn't need to be used in order for a concept to be included. Many other words are still talking about the same basic idea. What do you think of the idea of a chronological order? Does that make sense to you? -- Fyslee 16:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I like chronological. --Dematt 16:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Versions of Vitalism table (chronological)

Vitalism throughout history
Source	Specific Term
Ancient Egypt	Ankh
Ancient Greece	Pneuma
Anthroposophical medicine	Formative force, ether body, astral body
Ayurvedic medicine (Hindu)	Prana
Traditional Chinese Medicine/Taoism	Chi, Qi, Ki (Qi Gong "Master" healers)
Primitive medicine/Traditional medicine	Mana, orenda, tane, gana, sila, oki, etc.
Wicca (ancient fertility religion)	Unspecified (use "pranic healing" ritual)
Druidry	Awen
Energy medicine	Energy body, aura, Kirlian effect, etc.
Radiesthesia	Dowsing/Pendulum Radiation
Magnetic healing (Mesmerism)	Animal magnetism
Naturopathy	Vis Medicatrix Naturae
Homeopathy	Vital energy
Chiropractic	Innate intelligence
Reichian therapy	Orgone energy
Scientology	Life force
Therapeutic touch	Prana

I have copied it here for us to work on, and just begun to do a bit. -- Fyslee 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes its probably more meaningful that way. KrishnaVindaloo 17:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Now it isn't only about healing. So perhaps it may not be appropriate in that section of the article, but rather a more general section. Levine2112 17:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Vitalism isn't just about healing, but has been an element in many things throughout history. Here are some more topics of relevance. Some of them could be added to the table:

• New Age
• List of New Age topics
• Spiritualism
• Buddhism
• Shamanism
• Sufism
• Neo-Paganism
• Template: Beliefs about the nature of the divine (below) -- Fyslee 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good. But I don't think that these are all religious either. Some of these don't suppose a belief in the divine, just in a force beyond mechanics. We should add Psychology's "Psychic Energy" and Biochemistry's "Vital Force" to this list. And, I'm not sure what the developmental biology term is... but there exists a vitalistic conscept there as well. Also, I think we need to make it clear that this is chronological. Perhaps adding a date column may suffice or a brief explanation. Levine2112 18:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Vitalism is often a pantheistic concept, IOW no personal "god", just a force. The new title (can be improved) attempts to convey the chronological nature of the table. A date column is a good idea, since some items can be dated approximately, and some exactly. -- Fyslee 19:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

So where does religion fit into this and do we draw a line? --Dematt 19:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is inseparable from the other aspects, whether they are healing or other practices. Of course many, if not most of them, are not organized "religions", but they are belief systems. If you want to draw a line, then you'd have to create two articles, with some type of bridge between them, since they are so interconnected. This article is still small enough to include much more, and could be divided into sections dealing with the primarily religious aspects, and the primarily healing aspects. My next suggestion has far reaching consequences of the positive kind. See the next section....;-) -- Fyslee 19:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Vitalism

This article could be the main article (!!!!) for a new category - [[Category:Vitalism]]. There are quite a few articles here that could be part of that category. This means that this article suddenly takes a very central and defining role here. A number of them are probably already listed here. -- Fyslee 19:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. But I think we should be very selective about what goes into this category. For instance, just because someone studied a concept related to Vitalism... say Chopra with Ayurvedic... doesn't mean that Chopra should go into the category. I wouldn't even place Ayurvedic Medicine in the category as a whole for it also includes many Mechanistic beliefs as well. Perhaps we should just limit inclusion to the vitalistic concept of a field... so for Ayurvedic, we would only include Prana in the category. Levine2112 20:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. So, using the table as an example, it would be the things mentioned in left side that would be tagged for the category. Is that right? -- Fyslee 05:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so. Levine2112 06:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The category is in place and functioning. The link is at the bottom of the article.

The next task is to make sure that all those subjects are somehow linked to this article. They nearly always contain words that can be wikilinked to this article. -- Fyslee 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. I added Psychic energy there as well. Levine2112 18:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I also adding Dualism (Philospohy of the mind) to the category. Once you get into that, then you really start to explore there mind/body dilemma which is often at the heart of vitalism. Levine2112 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Good! There are enough articles here that are so closely related to Vitalism that a category seemed appropriate. Now with one click we can find them all. This article is now even more important and will get much more attention. -- Fyslee 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have an issue with the parent categoies... but let's take that over to that category discussion page. Levine2112 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Versions of Vitalism table (chronological and term first)

If we put the name first, it may be easier to keep in chronological order. Okay? --Dematt 02:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Vitalism throughout history
Term	Period	Origin
Chi, Qi, Ki, Yin and Yang	5000 BC	Traditional Chinese Medicine/Taoism
Ankh	3000 BC	Ancient Egypt
Pneuma, four humours		Ancient Greece
Formative force, etheric body, astral body		Anthroposophical medicine
Chakra, Dosha, Prana, Humours (Ayurveda)		Ayurvedic medicine (Hindu)
Mana, orenda, tane, gana, sila, oki, etc.		Primitive medicine/Traditional medicine
Unspecified (use "pranic healing" ritual)		Wicca (ancient fertility religion)
Awen		Druidry
Energy (healing or psychic or spiritual), Aura (paranormal), Biofield, etc.		Energy medicine/Alternative medicine
Animal magnetism	1750	Magnetic healing (Mesmerism)
Vital energy	1800	Homeopathy
Innate Intelligence	1906	Chiropractic
Vis medicatrix naturae	1900s	Naturopathy
Orgone energy	1930	Reichian therapy
Life force	1952	Scientology
Prana	1970s	Therapeutic touch

I put some dates preliminary dates in to see what it would look like. --Dematt 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the four humours of ancient Greece? I believe this was Hippocrates vitalistic concept of health. Levine2112 20:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also what about quickening in the medical sense? This is a term many obstetricians use to describe the vital spark at life's inception. Levine2112 02:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Humours maybe, quickening is just when the baby or uterus starts to twitch. Now according to WP, some think this is when the "spark" of life begins. Those "some" people would be adding a vitalistic and probably religious connotation to it. --Dematt 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Psychology's "Psychic Energy" and Biochemistry's "Vital Force"? Levine2112 02:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They are certainly non-materialistic. But I don't know if this stuff is considered vitalistic. See if you can find a source that states something to that effect. --Dematt 03:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Found this --Dematt 03:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Take a look here: Quickening (medical). The four humours might qualify. -- Fyslee 05:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You know we're going to find that everything has it's roots in vitalism because until the 18th century wasn't it heresy to believe otherwise? --Dematt 16:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed! There's something to it. In earlier times there were many more phenomena that were unexplained, and they often got some sort of supernatural (prescientific) explanation, whether it was God or something else. With increased knowledge many of those things have gotten a natural explanation. Those who followed along were keeping up with the developing sciences, and those who didn't became believers in religions and/or pseudosciences:

A prescientific phenomena can follow at least one of three paths leading to extremely different conclusions:

1. It can be scientifically validated and accepted, becoming a part of scientifically accepted fact. In medicine, such phenomena often start as traditional medicine, or "alternative" medicine, and end up becoming evidence based medicine (EBM).
2. It can be disproven and rejected after much experimentation shows negative results. Such phenomena are relegated to the history books as historic artifacts.
3. It can, in spite of a lack of scientific validation - and even in spite of clear rejection - be preserved and believed, thus becoming a current pseudoscientific phenomena. In medicine, such phenomena are often labeled quackery by the medical community and skeptics.

-- Fyslee 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Soooo.. basically,,, Everything is vitalism until the middle of the 17th or early 18th century when someone openly suggests that there is no god or "life force" and states that all things are explainable in physical/chemical terms. Who was that person and what field was that? OR are we talking about as far back as Galileo and Copernicus. --Dematt 20:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Copernicus is given credit for the beginning of modern science somewhere from 1450 - 1540. So everything before that could really be considered to be vitalistic. It then would take hundreds of years to slowly build the fields of science that we know today. As science attempts to explain everything in terms of physical/chemical, some hold on to the idea that there is a life force. So does science require that there be no "life force"? Or did Copernicus still believe in a life force (he was a catholic priest). --Dematt 21:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would go back thousands of years, because it's only the mysterious and unexplained phenomenon that are vulnerable to vitalistic interpretations. Even the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, etc. could explain many things in naturalistic terms, but there were things they couldn't explain, so the void was filled with metaphysical speculations, which in religious settings became firmly entrenched beliefs that were worth persecuting for, dying for, and generally forcing others to believe as one's self. Faith took precedence over fact in some cases, and had a strong tendency to squelch new knowledge (like Copernicus). -- Fyslee 22:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

List of vitalistic concepts (forces, energies, and such like)

The following list includes several terms from the table above, has eliminate some of them as they are to actual "things" (gods, personages, etc..), and includes a number of terms not found in the table, but found here at Wikipedia. I have deliberately eliminated words that only redirect to this article.

Feel free to add comments and more concepts. If you feel a concept doesn't belong here, then strike it out and explain why (a few words). The list also needs time periods and Origins, so some new items can be incorporated in the table above. -- Fyslee 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Animal magnetism - included above

Astral body - included

Aura (paranormal) - included

Awen - included

Biofield - included

Chi - included

Chakra - included

Dosha - included

Élan vital or Vital Force

Energy (healing or psychic or spiritual) - included

Etheric body - included

Humours (Ayurveda) - included

Innate Intelligence - included

Ki - included

Life force - included

Mana - included

Morphogenetic field

Neurotheology

Odic force

Orgone energy - included

Pneuma - included

Prana - included

Psychic energy

Qi - included

Shakti

Soul

Spirit

Subtle body

Vitalism

Yin and Yang - included

Classical Vitalism versus Mordern Vitalism

I am unsure if this warrants two separate articles with disambiguation or if there is room for this in just one article. A distinction can be drawn between the "classical vitalism" described already in this article and a "modern vitalism" that can be accommodated by conventional biomedical science. This modern vitalism is best described by the phrase vis medicatrix naturae – the healing power of nature. The truth of this proposition is indisputable. Nature, or more specifically, the body's natural healing mechanisms, is the principle mechanism by which any healing process occurs. Without these natural mechanisms (our immune system, our wound healing capacity, and countless other regulatory and corrective systems) life itself is barely possible.

In terms of chiropractic - the field which I feel most comfortable speaking about - the vitalist notion of Innate intelligence is truly this modern version of vitalism. Other than in a historical sense, I have never learned that Innate intelligence does not refers to any quasi-religious force, but rather just the body's innate ability to heal itself. This is one of the distinct qualities which defines living tissue from the dead or inorganic. This is modern vitalism... and I am sure it is not only limited to chiropractic, but in many healing disciplines including modern medicine. I think a distinction needs to be made to disambiguate between the two concepts... classical vitalism being unverifiable and modern vitalism being indisputable. I realize that this distinction is touched upon, but I think it can be made more clear. I certainly think it is unfair to place something that is entirely real under an umbrella which includes terms such as pseudoscience and obsolete scientific theories. Levine2112 02:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112. You will need to prove that no modern chiropractor uses classical vitalism. KrishnaVindaloo 04:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really necessary nor possible any more than it is possible to show that no MD uses vitalistic concepts in their practices. It doesn't really matter what we call all these things, the end result is that people have been trying to explain life with reductionist thinking and have always fallen back onto something that is unexplainable. No wonder Pasteur, Freud, etc. eventually deduced that there was some other force putting it all together. They did not have the advantages of computers and calculators and the internet to show them that just because we can't fathom the idea of how everything can be explained in materialistic terms, does not mean that it isn't so. That is where we are. That is what emergence is all about; that you can reduce life to the smallest of particles, but at some point these particles begin to combine in ways that we can't predict, YET! Until then, it has been the pattern for the great thinkers to put together metaphors to explain how things can be used to advance mankind. Medicine still uses metaphors such as vitality, homeostasis, innate. Biology uses instinct, vital spark, etc. We would be making a mistake to be presenting any of this as pseudoscience. It is history that is still progressing. The purpose of threatening a field with the pseudoscience label is to keep it from settling into the easy answer of "god causes everything" attitude. It motivates a field to find out why what they say works the way they claim it does. As long as it is working in that direction, that is what is important. We are all in this together. This is our history, nobody can escape it. There is no reason to make it derogatory. Now can we work together to make this an interesting and enlightening article that pays the proper homage to the great minds that got us to this point? --Dematt 15:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Why? Isn't enough to show that II isn't taught that way anymore? That classical vitalism is not part of the typical curriculum of chiropractor's education? That II isn't the metaphysical construct from which it came, but rather now just a way of describing the self-healing physiology of the body? And this goes beyond chiropractic, I am sure. Many kinds of physicians in a wide variety of fields discuss the body's propensity to heal... its vitality. Anyhow, there is classical vitalism and there is the modern vitalism. I just think we should draw a distinction here.

In the spirit of collaboration, I offer this article which is highly critical (yet fair) of chiropractic. It dedicates a small section to describe the differences between classical and modern vitalism and why Innate Intelligence has become the latter. Enjoy!Levine2112 04:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific status of vitalistic concepts

While there is some amazing information in this new section, I think it breaks the "no essays" policies of Wikipedia. It seems to take Carey's points about the scientific method and be applying it to information about Vitalism (and then coming to the conclusion that therefore Vitalism is pseudoscience), thus creating a WP:OR. It would be one thing if Carey was making this evaluation of Vitalism (or some other second-party source), but to me - and I may very well be wrong - it appears that the editor who made this edit is applying Carey's verifiable views to the verifiable concepts of Vitalism. Thus a WP:OR violation is created. While I would hate to delete it all, it would seem that this is warranted.

Also, I don't think using bold on the article mainspace is a good idea. Levine2112 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

New Science stuff

Megsherer, thanks for the large volume of information:) It looks like it took a lot of work and I, for one, apprectiate your efforts. I am concerned that there is a lot of: X is baloney and X is vitalism, therefore all vitalism is baloney. That in itself would be considered a logical fallacy. That is not insurmountable and we may be able to work it in. However, the bigger problem is the use of the "guidelines for distinguishing between pseudoscience (which is a large gray area mass;) and correctly applied sciences." For instance, no one knows how may of these guidelines a particular science has to fit in before it qualifies. It is very subjective and is not for us to decide. For something as pejorative as the PS label, WP cannot make judgements. We have to rely on verifiable and reliable sources and even then should state it as opinion as we have done in the critiques section. Otherwise it is WP:OR. When using this type of format, we could create anything we wanted and that is not our job as editors, no matter what we think we know.

Anyway, since there is so much, maybe we need to work with it here. The first step is getting rid of the bold as per WP guidelines format. --Dematt 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the guidelines really forbid all use of bold (besides the first use of the article title or subject)? I've seen it used quite a bit for formatting purposes, but would object to using it to emphasize POV issues. That type of bolding could be seen as POV pushing by an editor, while the other type is simply for formatting purposes. What guidelines or practices should we use? I have tried to work with it below, and the bolding sure worked better! -- Fyslee 10:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you were the one that taught me that;) However, I think we need to change that part of the narrative anyway.

Thanks for the links, it makes much more sense that way. If this author turns out to be reliable, I have no problem with the information and think it was presented well with the exception of the PS formatting. Basically, Stenger presents a great narrative to debunk some of the more obvious so-called "bioenergy" endeavers, but he does not have to use the word pseudoscience. I don't think we need to either. We can use this information in the critiques section and it should be able to stand o its own. Readers can then make up their own minds. Anyone with half a mind will probably see for themselves. Check out my changes on the page and see if you agree. --Dematt 23:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, my first attempt was a complete bust. When I take out the the PS headings, there is little left that has anything to do with vitalism. Most of it has to do with bienergy and a lesson in quantum mechanics. It's going to end up being really short, so I'll work on it below and go from there. --Dematt 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Still trying. Below is what is left. The remaining does not make much sense alone and needs to be synthesized into something that is worth keeping. I'm not sure it's going to amount to much. I'm going to have to be bold and take it back out of the article for now. --Dematt 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Scientific status para work area

This section is originally the contribution of Megscherer.

NB: Not all references function here because they are originally used further up in the article itself. To find them, go to the article. -- Fyslee 10:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Carey provides a guideline for distinguishing between pseudoscience and correctly applied sciences. Vitalism can be critically evaluated in terms of Carey's criteria as follows:

1. Pseudosciences often use flawed reasoning in an attempt to explain their theories. Examples that can be interpreted as fallacious reasoning are below.

: a. The use of well established theory to strengthen a theory that has yet to gain any scientific acceptance can lead to a fallacy that Carey describes as an unsupported analogy or similarity. Vitalism, or bioenergy, is often explained as being an electromagnetic(EM) field and is supported by the theory of quantum physics. Joanne Stefanatos states that "The principles of energy medicine originate in quantum physics." Victor Stenger offers several explanations as to why this line of reasoning may be misplaced. He explains that energy is recognized as matter and exists in discrete packets called quanta. The quanta of EM fields are known to be photons. Energy fields are composed of their componet parts and so only exist when quanta are present. Therefor energy fields are not holistic, but are rather a system of discreet parts that must obey by the laws of physics. This also means that energy fields are not instantaneous. These facts of quantum physics place limitations on the infinite, continuous field that is used by some theorists to describe so-called "human energy fields". Stenger continues, explaining that the effects of EM forces have been measured by physicists as accurately as one part in a billion and there is yet to be any evidence that living organisms emit a unique field.

I am having trouble making any sense from this as the Stenger and Stefantos sources are not showing anything online and it sounds pretty technical. Can you explain it a little more or maybe type out a little more of the article. I am particularly concerned about the part about quantum physics being used to explain vitalism. --Dematt 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I tried to simplify the quantum physics portion. The information I got from the Stenger paper is nearly the same as his 1999 paper that is online, "the physics of complementary and alternative medicine." Joanne Stefanatos is a holist veterinarian. I understand removing Carey, it just helped me as an outline. I hope the rest makes sense and can find its way back on wiki.

After looking at all the comments (I'm still getting used to using this) I completely understand the premise behind removing this section. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to just remove Carey. The only paragraph I think is still resonable would be the above paragraph on quantum physics. Thank you for pointing out my 'fallacy' Dematt:) And thank you for your efforts to salvage some of my contribution Fyslee. This is a supportive network.

Totally agree. This is a good paragraph as written. I'll put it back in. The rest is certainly good information, but probably needs to go into of the individual articles that they are about. Thanks for helping make that decision, it was gicing me a headache:) --Dematt 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

: b. Arguments by elimination occur when two explanations are offered, one is rejected and so the second explanation is assumed to be correct. However, showing that an explanation is false does not provide evidence for the validity of the second explanation. The explanations provided are necessarily encompassing and there may be an untested explanation that better describes the phenomenon. Rubik admits that most research on biofield therapies test the effectiveness of reduced anxiety and pain in patients. These qualitative experiments often do not take into account other factors, and so reduced pain may occur when biofield therapies are applied, but this is not empirical evidence for the existance of a vital force. Carey points out that many ailments go away within 90 days even when untreated.

: c. The appearance of a desired effect or anomaly can be created when certain facts are omitted, content is distorted, or the claim relies heavily on anecdotal evidence. A product called VitalForce claims to infuse other products such as salt or Kava Kava with energy patterns that are described as subtle energy. This range of energies is claimed to produce varied beneficial results that can be applied to humans, animals, or agriculture. The research portion of their website begins with a lengthy letter from a veterinarian professing the effectiveness of the VitalForce product. In one experiment test subjects (humans) are exposed to energy patterns by drinkind water infused with subtle energy and their auras are interpreted using Kirlian photography. However, "auras" may actually be the result of thermal movement of infrared rediation that all objects emit. This is known as black body radiation(Stenger 1999). Stenger also points out that Kirlian photography is the result of corona discharge that can be effected by differences in temperature and moisture levels, which may change as a person drinks water. Given the disputed nature of the aura along with the ability to manipulate Kirlian images, the Kirlian photographs are not acceptable evidence for a scientific study. Also applying Ockham's Razor, a known physical phenomenon of black body radiation would be a more plausible explanation than an undetected, unique energy field.

: d. Any scientific experiment must be falsifiable and reproducible. Martha Rogers, the main theorist behind the Science of Unitary Human Beings, describes the human energy field as "an irreducible, indivisible, pandimensional energy field identified by pattern and manifesting characteristics that are specific to the whole and which cannot be predicted from knowledge of the parts." This holistic approach to understanding the bioenergy field does not allow for the ability to generate a hypothesis or repeat experiments if it cannot be predicted. Also any failed attempts to test the energy field could be dismissed as not encompassing the "whole" and therefore would not be falsifiable.

2. Most pseudosciences produce little explanatory theory. This can be shown for vitalism by the lack of empirical data produced through experimentation as well as the misapplied connection to quantum theory.

3. Skepticism is often viewed as a sign of narrow-mindedness. One example is given by a blog from Deepak Chopra on October 16, 2006, "It won't satisfy the skeptics at present, but despite their iron-clad objections, a strictly materialistic view of biology, evolution, and cosmology won't hold water."

4. Pseudosciences will usually show little change in their ideas over time. Within the practices of the biofield therapies Qi-Gong is thought to be as old as 18 century BC, chakra has been practiced since 8th century BC, and Reiki was introduced in the early 20th century. Therapeutic Touch incorporates aspects of each of these, and animal magnetism, which was theorized in the 18th century, is very similar to the ideas behind bioenergetic theories.

5. & 6. Two other signs that point to a pseudoscience are that they tend to not be self-correcting and can occur within the bounds of a legitimate science. The Science of Unitary Beings promotes human energy fields and is sometimes incorporated into nurse training, and although human energy fields are not quantum physics, the quantum theory is often cited to explain human energy fields. Bioenergetic research almost never appears in scientific journals and the critical review is likely to be a scientist of an opposing discipline rather than another bioenergetic theorist. The research put forth by VitalForce showed no evidence of peer review and was published by the company that produces the product.

Vitalism in the foundations of medicine

I changed the heading on this section. I think this is the link that we are missingin this article that will connect to Fyslee's table. We need to develop this section to describe how modern medicine started out all vitalistic and then the transition into scientific medicine with some of the unexplained CAMs remaining today. Then we should have most of the fields of science covered, other than maybe physics and, god forbid, ...evolution and ID?

Using the term in the definition

OK, I know it's not our fault that the dictionary we're citing uses "vital" in the definition of "vitalism," but that's really not a helpful definition. I think we can do better, and I'm willing to help improve the intro if there is support for improving it. Antelan ^talk 15:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

new age and science

Is it right to include the new-age's "vitalism", along with the more-scientific vitalism? some scientists belive we can't describe the life only by chemical and physical explanation, although they don't belive "spiritual" and mystical power of life.

Examples? Some scientists believe in New Age concepts, too, but we need to consider how various views are to be weighted. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This question applies to other articles too. In my own opinion "vitalism" refers primarily to a philosophical standpoint. It is necessary to provide a clear analysis of the relations between it, certain medical and biological ideas, religious statements, the putative energies of Asian medical systems, theories of mind and so forth, together with the impact of such ideas on popular culture, from the humours to the "new age". All this is beyond the scope of any single article, I think, but primarily demands that an historically-aware and interdisciplinary consensus be attempted as to the web of relations between these various matters. It is a case of where the various aspects deserve prominence and how to link between them most meaningfully. Redheylin (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, the connections of Sheldrake and Steiner with new age and vitalism are obscure and unreferenced - I do not think they belong here. It would be reasonable to mention that some obsolete ideas live on in popular imagination, I think, that's all. I do not think it right to suggest there is anything in common between these two people. It would be reasonable to mention Sheldrake in the context of holism, organicism and various theories of mind, being new formulations of concepts, once associated with the obsolete term vitalism, still tenable in the life sciences. Redheylin (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

for exmple - Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Claude Bernard (i am the same user from the beginning of the discussion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.115.155 (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Skepdic citation

Here's the statement I have removed;

However, opponents of vitalism argue that it is a remnant of prescientific thinking, since its core ideas are impossible to prove or disprove using scientific method.

HERE'S THE TEXT CITED: Vitalism, Purpose, and Superstition - A YouTube Abstract

"Vitalism—the insistence that there is some big, mysterious extra ingredient in all living things—turns out to have been not a deep insight but a failure of imagination." --Daniel Dennett

Vitalism is the metaphysical doctrine that living organisms possess a non-physical inner force or energy that gives them the property of life.

Vitalists believe that the laws of physics and chemistry alone cannot explain life functions and processes. Vitalism is opposed to mechanistic materialism and its thesis that life emerges from a complex combination of organic matter.

The vitalistic principle goes by many names: chi or qi (China) prana (India and therapeutic touch), ki (Japan); Wilhelm Reich's orgone, Mesmer's animal magnetism, Bergson's élan vital (vital force), etc. American advocates much prefer the term energy. Many kinds of alternative therapies or energy medicines are based upon a belief that health is determined by the flow of this alleged energy. For examples, see acupuncture, Ayurvedic medicine, therapeutic touch, reiki, and qigong.

Energy medicine is a placebo, leading many advocates to mistake the effects of classical conditioning, expectation of relief that leads to reduction of anxiety and stress, and beliefs about the effectiveness of the medicine as effects of mythical energy.

See also magical thinking and superstition.

There is no mention of testability or pre-science in the cited source. The statement lacks citation and at present is editorial POV. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks fair, thank you. Based on your edit summary I thought that you were disputing that the source would be adequate to the claim that critics criticize vitalism. We have plenty of sources that are more informative, so I see no particular need to move the ref. to a statement that it does actually support. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Precisely - who knows, maybe the Teletubbies have committed themselves on the issue. Fact is; when I come to read the "antivitalism" lobby's contributions to these matters, I often find the referencing poor. Just today I came across a page on Magnet therapy from which somebody had industriously removed a set of papers recording pain-relief due to neurone blocking and substituted another load of inaccurate propaganda that misquotes its references. Commonly this takes place without discussion, though there is usually a good deal of destruction involved and edit warring is, unsurprisingly, commonplace.

I am sure you can see that, in the above case, this is unwise as well as pseudoscientific in itself, since magnet therapy is widely practised and folks might conclude that what is only analgesia is really healing, and that the wiki article is wrong. Which it is.

So, while I left the present misquote in place when I recently revised this page, since then I have found so very many instances of "bad science preaching good science", and been so appalled by the bad manners and ignorance of many parties involved, that I have resolved to tag and then remove every such reference I encounter. If you like, I should be happy to alert you to every such change I make. Redheylin (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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 ([30]) 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: [31]. 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". [32]

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 [33]:

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 [34]</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)

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

[35] 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.[36] [37] [38] [39]"

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)