The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued).

2006-11-19T09:34:00.000-08:00

[to return to the main document, click here, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/]

07. Reference Tools:

Barron's E-Z 101 Study Keys - Biology(1991) states:

[per Minkoff, E.C. (PhD{biology} ?){for intro. college bio.}]

"[as opposed to vitalism's "something else"] mechanism: view of life as just a complex form of physics and chemistry. Most scientists today adopt this strategy in their research [...] reductionism: view that attempts to explain wholes in terms of their parts and biology in terms of physics and chemistry [...] compositionalism (=holism): view that biology cannot be predicted from physics and chemistry because new phenomena emerge when smaller components are put together into complex systems [note: this is a materialistic, physicalistic, naturalistic holism per 'emergent properties' WITHOUT putative spirit force entities being invoked -- nonvitalistic, nonteleogical-finalistic, parsimonious, not supernaturalistic, not metaphysical-holism's 'bodymindspirit whatever'; p.002]";

(ISBN 0812045696)

the BBC states:

[in “Virtual Lab Brings Science To Life”(2001-01-14)]

"if you have ever wondered what life was like as a 19th Century biologist, now is your chance [...] Sven Dierig, the man behind the virtual laboratory project at the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin, said the initial plan was to create a 3D model of Emil du Bois-Reymond's physiological institute that people could explore and learn about via the web. The institute was established in Berlin in 1873 and its work helped to free biology of lingering vitalist ideas which assumed living organisms were powered by a 'life force' [...] 'we want to establish a virtual research site for historical work on those forms of knowledge prefiguring what today's public knows as biotechnology and molecular biology,' Dierig told BBC News Online";

(click here,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1111654.stm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20021022190540/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1111654.stm)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

)

the Blackwell Companion to Philosophy(2002) states:

"there is a position in philosophy of biology that holds that living things have biological properties in virtue of containing a non-physical substance (a Bergsonian elan vital) that animates them with life. This is vitalism [...] if vitalism were true, the supervenience thesis [...] much discussed in the philosophy of mind would be false [...] most biologists and philosophers of biology believe that the supervenience thesis is correct [...] the hypothesis that living things possess an immaterial something has led to nothing [...] although physicalism in the form of the supervenience thesis is widely accepted, most philosophers of biology reject the claim that biology reduces to physics [p.318...per] anti-reductionism without vitalism [p.319...] vitalism: any position which holds that life is a non-reducible, non-physical attribute of living things. Specific forms of vitalism have arisen in the history of philosophy as reactions to a perceived overemphasis on determinist and materialist metaphysics [p.892]";

(ISBN 0631219080)

the Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy(2004) states:

[Bunnin, N. (? ?), Yu, J. (? ?)]

"vitalism [...] the doctrine that holds that living organisms owe their characteristics to some special vital principle [...] subject to different laws from those governing physical matter [p.728...beyond explanation in] mechanistic or materialistic terms [...mentions] Bergson forcefully argued for vitalism, using the concept of elan vital (life force). Vitalism is challenged by the development of molecular genetics [...per] physiological processes also follow the laws of physics and chemistry [p.729]";

(ISBN 1405106794)

the Bloomsbury Guide to Human Thought(1993) states:

"in the context of modern science the concept of vitalism is defunct [as in rejected knowledge...per] it appears to be of no use in providing an explanation for the processes of life [...] vitalism [...being] the doctrine that life cannot be explained purely by the application of the principles of chemistry and physics [...vitalism] has ancient roots in religion [...vitalism] considered that the heat produced from an animal was associated with its life force [...i.e.] ‘vital heat’ [...of ideas] far removed from the today's scientific study of life [...] the Swiss chemist Paracelsus (1493-1541) used the term archeus [...] vitalism, in one form or other, was the philosophy of most, scientists or otherwise, until the late 19th century [...until] the development of cell theory and the idea that the mechanism behind life itself could be explained. In retrospect, it seems that vitalism received its death blow with the synthesis of urea in 1828 by Friedrich Wöhler [...as] the new science of biochemistry developed, more such evidence accrued and new theories ceased to draw on vitalist precepts [...] Driesch [...] proposed the existence of a soul-like force, to which he applied the Aristotelian term entelechy [...] Bergson [...] argued for the existence of a single, unique vital impulse which is continually developing; he thus implied that evolution was creative rather than mechanistic [...] research throughout the 20th century has shown that biological systems, when studied in a controlled way, are entirely predictable from physical and chemical principles";

(ISBN 0747509913)

the Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia(2003, 6th ed.) states:

[in "Life"]

"the basis of life [...] much of the history of biology and of philosophy as related to biology has been marked by a division of thought between vitalistic (or animistic) and mechanistic (or materialistic) concepts. In the most antithetic interpretations of these concepts, the vitalistic school maintains that there is a vital force that distinguishes the living from the nonliving and the mechanistic school holds that there is no essential difference between the animate and inanimate and that all life can be explained by physical and chemical laws [...] the animistic school, largely predicated on the inexplicability of the basic phenomena of life, has been greatly overshadowed by the accumulating weight of scientific data. As more and more is learned of the minute details of the structure and composition of the substances that make up the cell (to the extent that some have been synthesized chemically), it has become increasingly apparent that living matter is made up of the same (and only those) elements found in inorganic material, except that they are differently organized”;

(click here [scroll down for the CUP entry],

http://www.answers.com/topic/life)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050217090011/http://www.answers.com/topic/life)
(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,
)

Dr. Wilson's 11th Hour Introduction to Biology states:

[a science study guide by Wilson, D.L. (? ?)]

[in "Unit I: From Atoms to Living Cells"]

“Pasteur was perhaps the last famous scientist to believe in vitalism. The vitalism hypothesis states that living organisms need special forces or spirits, which go beyond those described by physics and chemistry. Scientists no longer believe that vitalism is correct because we have been able to explain most of the fundamental properties of life, including growth, reproduction, movement, heredity, metabolism, and complex structures on the basis of the nature of atoms and molecules and the structures that are built from them by living organisms. The fall of vitalism began about 150 years ago as chemists made urea from inorganic materials. Until that time it was thought that organic matter could not be made from inorganic. The success of molecular and cellular biology in this century appears to have ended any need for vitalism”;

(click here,

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/11thhour/wilson/about/u1ch1.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041124230817/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/11thhour/wilson/about/u1ch1.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/11thhour/wilson/about/u1ch1.html)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this {in part}, click here {00.01.36-00.02.10},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6B6FfBgQBI)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this, click here,

)

ii.

[in "11th Hour Introduction to Biology"(2000)]

"vitalism, the belief that special forces or spirits are involved in living organisms, has not been found to be necessary [...] living things obey the laws of physics and chemistry [...] biology is based on, and the science of biology builds from, physical principles [...] we have been able to describe and understand the activities of living organisms solely on the basis of the principles of physics and chemistry [...] it once was thought that life required special forces or spirits that went beyond those found in inanimate objects like rocks [p.006...] part of the initial hypothesis of vitalism was the idea that organic compounds [...] could not be produced without the aid of a 'vital force' supplied by living organisms [...but] in the mid-1800s several chemists made simple organic chemicals from ordinary chemicals [p.007...] these experiments were the beginning of the end for the then-popular vitalistic view [p.008...] unit I exam [...question] which of the following is NOT one of the accepted, major generalizations in biology? [...answer] living things exhibit vitalism, having special properties not governed by the laws of physics and chemistry [p.095]";

(ISBN 0632044160)

(for an amazon.com short review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/R189PN8KI457J2/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this review, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_Wilson_DL_PhD_ISBN_0632044160)

the Encyclopedia Britannica(1911, 11th ed.) states:

[in "Physiology"]

"the tendency to explain vital phenomena by mystical means [...per] the animism of Stahl [...] and in the second half of the 18th century vitalism [...] again the opinion came to be entertained that the cause of vital phenomena was a mystical power (force hypermecanique) - that 'vital force' which, neither physical nor chemical in its nature, was held to be active in living organisms only. Vitalism continued to be the ruling idea in physiology until about the middle of the 19th century, and its supremacy was only gradually overthrown by the great discoveries in natural science of that century [...per] Wöhler [...] Mayer [...] von Helmholtz [...] Mayer, Helmholtz, Pierre Louis Dulong [...] Frankland [...] Rubner and others [...like] Darwin and [...] Haeckel, prepared the way for a natural explanation of the enigma of evolution and structure of organisms [...] by the second half of the 19th century the doctrine of vital force was definitely and finally overthrown to make way for the triumph of the natural method of explaining vital phenomena, which down to the present time [1911!] has continued to spread and flourish with an unparalleled fertility";

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060820190924/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Physiology)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BrRnCEQshA)

the Encyclopedia of Astrobiology, Astronomy, and Spaceflight states:

[in "Vitalism"]

"vitalism. The now-discredited hypothesis that only living tissue, by virtue of possessing some 'life-force,' can produce organic compounds. Among its greatest advocates was Berzelius and, more recently, Bergson. Although Wöhler's synthesis of urea posed a serious empirical challenge to this point of view, it was only with the production of an organic substance, acetic acid, from its elements, by the German chemist Adolph Wilhelm Hermann Kolbe in 1845, that belief in vitalism was finally undermined";

(click here,

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/vitalism.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050210114159/http://daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/V/vitalism.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

)

the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion(2003) states:

"vitalism is rejected by contemporary science [p.531...] the last remnant of Aristotelian teleology was vitalism, the belief that at least organisms are actuated by some immaterial vital principle that explains their structure and development. Most biologists reject this notion as unnecessary mystification, and look for purely physical causes of organic structures and development [p.877]";

(ISBN 0028657047)

the Etownian states:

[in "Scientists Rally To Support, Protect Evolution"{per Jones, K. (? ?)]

"modern biology has arrived at two major principles that are thoroughly supported by evidences that are considered laws of nature. The first concerns all biological elements and processes as being obedient to the laws of physics and chemistry [which vitalism denies]";

(click here,

http://www.etownian.com/060302/opinion-scientists_rally_to.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060506042611/http://www.etownian.com/060302/opinion-scientists_rally_to.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

)

the Evolution Education Wiki states:

[in "Politicization"]

"consider vitalism, the theory that the processes of living things are due to some sort of special 'vital force' or 'life stuff'. The advocates of many alternative medical therapies often have some vitalistic theory as their theoretical justification -- that their therapies work with 'chi' or 'vital energies' or whatever. And vitalism has had a long and notable history, going back at least as far as Aristotle, who proposed that there are three kinds of vital force or soul: the vegetable soul, the animal soul, and the rational soul. However, vitalism has been suffering defeat after defeat after crushing defeat in recent centuries, and it has become totally discredited among serious scientists. There are still many poorly-understood physiological phenomena, but the track record of vitalistic hypotheses has led to them being ruled out as serious contenders";

(click here,

http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Politicization&printable=yes)

(archived here,

)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

)

ii.

[in "Vitalism"]

"vitalism is the theory that living things are alive because they have some nonphysical 'vital force' or 'life stuff' in them that is distinct from nonliving matter [...] vitalism continues to survive in the 'theoretical justifications' of various 'alternative medical therapies', which often feature mysterious 'forces' and 'energies' like 'chi' and 'prana'. However, those advocating such concepts seem to have little interest in working out who is right about what -- contrary to the practice of mainstream scientists. However, vitalism has gone steadily downhill in the esteem of mainstream scientists over the last few centuries, to the point that a 'vital force of the gaps' hypothesis for biological mysteries is usually considered unthinkable [!!!]. A few centuries ago, a common vitalist hypothesis had been that 'organic' compounds could only be made from inorganic ones by living things. According to a common stereotyped account, it had been discredited by Friedrich [...Wöhler's] 1828 synthesis of urea from ammonium cyanate. But that was only one synthesis, and nobody attached a greater significance to it back then. But it nevertheless was the beginning of the end for this view; it was followed by numerous other such laboratory inorganic-to-organic syntheses, and this vitalist view was ultimately discredited. Fischer-Tropsch and Urey-Miller syntheses can produce a great variety of organic compounds from a few simple starting materials.[...] German embryologist Hans Driesch [...] was one of the last mainstream biologists to support vitalism. Vitalists could retreat into other territory, but they suffered numerous other defeats. And over the last century, the development of biochemistry and molecular biology elucidated metabolic pathways, genetic-information handling, etc. in great detail, with not a trace of 'vital force' to be found. What makes living things alive was shown to be a matter of organization, not some special substance [...] related to vitalism is mind-body dualism, the theory that mind is due to some nonphysical 'mind stuff'. Although mental processes are not understood as well as life processes, mind-body dualism has proved as unsupportable as vitalism";

(click here,

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vitalism)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041224193616/http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vitalism)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Vitalism)

holisticonline.com states:

[in "Chiropractic, Key Principles: The Vitalistic Principle"]

"vitalistic principle holds that the human organism can keep itself healthy if there are no barriers to full expression of all its vital functions. The body has the innate ability to heal itself from within. The life force (or innate intelligence) emanates throughout the body through the nervous system. The nervous system, in a sense, is the conduit of the life force. By manipulating the spine and other joints through which the life force passes (the spine itself is a series of joints}, chiropractors see themselves as removing barriers or obstacles to the full expression of this life force, thereby allowing the functioning necessary for health. The vitalistic model distinguishes chiropractic from the conventional medical model. Unlike in allopathy and western medicine, chiropractors do not directly treat disease. They facilitate the body's own restorative powers. The vital force cannot be measured scientifically. But it is something chiropractors believe in. Like chi in Chinese medicine, prana in Ayurveda, and the vital force in homeopathy, vital force is a major premise of chiropractic";

(click here,

http://www.holisticonline.com/Chiropractic/chiro_vitalistic-principle.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20010624035057/http://holisticonline.com/Chiropractic/chiro_vitalistic-principle.htm)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.holisticonline.com/Chiropractic/chiro_vitalistic-principle.htm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbXN5UKKHoo)

The Independent states:

[in "Why the Mind is Life's Greatest Mystery"(06-16-2006-06-16)]

"back in the 19th century, biologists were convinced that they would find a special 'life force' that breathed life into plants and animals and departed at their death. Of course, no such force was ever found, Crick himself contributing to its demise. The answer turned out to be that when you understand how living things work, you realize they don't need any special force at all";

(click here,

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article702961.ece)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070427065503/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article702961.ece)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article702961.ece)

(also here,

http://www.thecivicplatform.com/2006/06/08/the-mysteries-of-our-brain/)

the Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science states:

"in biology vitalism seems justly dead. The successes of molecular biology do not encourage us to believe that a mysterious entelechy or élan vital is an additive necessary to turn inanimate matter into living being";

(click here,

http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/104.asp)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20030513092402/http://www.disf.org/en/Voci/104.asp)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

)

the Los Angeles Times states:

[in ""]

"";

the McGraw Hill "Integrative Biology Virtual Glossary" states:

"vitalism: the view that natural processes are controlled by supernatural forces and cannot be explained through the laws of physics and chemistry alone, as opposed to mechanism";

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20021221232325/www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/glossary/glossaryv.mhtml)

the New York Times states:

[in "Vegetarians vs. Atkins: Diet Wars Are Almost Religious"(02-22-2004-02-22)]

"[Kolata, G. (? ?)] 'the arguments over diet go way back,' said Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, an obesity researcher at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons. 'They are in fact an echo of the discredited scientific notion of vitalism,' he said of the idea that living things are not governed by the laws of chemistry and physics. Although vitalism was disproved 200 years ago";

(click here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/weekinreview/22kola.html)[RB]

ii.

[in "The Conscious Mind Is Still Baffling to Experts of All Stripes"(1996-04-16)]

"[per Blakeslee, S. (? ?)] one hundred years ago, people could not understand how life could arise out of mere chemicals, he said. But when DNA was explained, theories of vitalism -- that a magical force was needed to explain life -- disappeared";

(click here,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=980CE5D61139F935A25757C0A960958260)

iii.

[in "Science and Technology; Overthrowing The Established Order"]

[a review of "Revolution in Science" by Lederberg, J. (? ?) "President of Rockefeller University, received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1958 for his research in microbial genetics"]

"in fact, DNA research has brought an end to a long history of vitalistic speculation, namely the expectation that new principles transcending the existing framework of physics and chemistry would be needed to explain living phenomena";

(click here,

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E7D61138F932A15757C0A963948260)

the Norton Dictionary of Modern Thought(1999) states:

"genetic memory [...the discarded idea that] a frog's egg 'remembers' to grow up into a frog [...discarded since there is] no property of genetic memory that is not explicable in terms or ordinary genetics and heredity [parsimony!...so, this nonparsimonious idea] belongs to the strange philosophical museum that also contains racial memory, elan vital (see vitalism), and entelechy [p.357...vitalism is contrasted with] mechanism [...an idea that] modern biology and medicine owe all their great triumphs [to...per] methodologically [...] behaving as if all vital activities could be adequately explained in terms of material composition and physico-chemical performance [p.911]";

(ISBN 0393046966)

the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy(1998) states:

[per Bechtel, W. (? ?), Richardson, R.C. (? ?); Craig, E. (? ?) {editor}]

[in "Vitalism"]

"vitalism now has no credibility […] sometimes credited to the view that vitalism posits an unknowable factor in explaining life; and further, vitalism is often viewed as unfalsifiable, and therefore a pernicious metaphysical doctrine[!...] Mayr, for example, says that vitalism ‘virtually leaves the realm of science by falling back on an unknown and presumably unknowable factor’ […] Hempel, by contrast, insists that the fault with vitalism is not that it posits entities which cannot be observed, but that such explanations ‘render all statements about entelechies inaccessible to empirical test and thus devoid of empirical meaning’ because no methods of test, however indirect, are provided […the] central problem is that vitalism offers no definite predictions […though historically] vitalists took great pains to subject their views to experimental test […] vitalism, as much as mechanistic alternatives, was often deeply embedded in an empirical and experimental programme […] vitalists reacted to perceived inadequacies of mechanistic explanations; in many cases they rightly recognized that the forms of mechanism, materialism or reductionism advocated by their contemporaries were undercut on empirical grounds […yet] their own proposals [the vitalists] were supplemented by empirically more adequate mechanistic accounts [thus, scientifically rejected]";

(click here,

http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/~bill/teaching/philbio/vitalism.htm)

('concise edition' is ISBN 0415223644)

the Skeptic's Dictionary states:

[in "Energy"(2007-05-27)]

"this energy is outside the bounds of scientific control or study [...] energy medicines are based upon variants of the metaphysical theory known as vitalism, a theory that has been dead in the West for over a century";

(click here,

http://www.skepdic.com/energy.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060409064507/http://skepdic.com/energy.html)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.skepdic.com/energy.html)

[defunct](for a youtube slideshow of this, click here {00.04.10-00.04.38},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUoqhERKeKU)

Sparknotes states:

[in "Structure of Alkanes"]

"organic chemistry had its origins in the study of natural compounds extracted from living organisms. It was believed that these compounds contained a 'vital force' that was responsible for life processes. This theory of 'vitalism' held that organic compounds were somehow beyond the grasp of experimental science. Vitalism was disproved when Friederich Wohler accidentally created the organic compound urea by heating ammonium cyanate, which was classified as inorganic";

(click here,

http://www.sparknotes.com/chemistry/organic2/alkanes/section1.html)

the Vancouver Sun states:

[in "Naturopathy's Main Article of Faith Cannot Be Validated: Reliance on Vital Forces Leaves Its Practices Based on Beliefs Without Scientific Backing"{per McKnight, P. (? ?); Vancouver Sun, 2009-03-07)]

"[Kane, E.A. (ND Bastyr 1994) quoting Snider, P. (ND NCNM) {who assembled naturopathy's principles along with Zeff}] 'we believe in the vital force which has inherent organization, is intelligent and intelligible . . . Our way is to research the mystery and beauty of the life force, in which we have faith' -- American Association of Naturopathic Physicians Convention; Townsend Letter for Doctors [...] critics charge that naturopathy is simply so much pseudoscientific quackery [...] naturopaths, such as B.C. Naturopathic Association president Christoph Kind, claim that 'naturopathic medicine is substantiated by voluminous research" and that "the scientific education and training that naturopathic physicians receive is no different than the scientific training medical doctors receive' [...] there is little scientific support for many other commonly used procedures, including homeopathy, hydrotherapy and iridology [...] the anti-scientific philosophy of naturopathy [...] effectively destroys naturopathy's pretensions of being scientific [...] as William Jarvis, former professor of public health and preventive medicine at Loma Linda University says [...] 'they believe that vitalistic forces are ultimately responsible' [...] a philosophy known as vitalism, which posits the existence of 'vital forces,' mysterious and mystical forces [...] these vital forces that were believed to distinguish living from non-living matter, and they became associated with the four humours (yellow bile, black bile, phlegm and blood) in western medicine and chi or prana in eastern medicine [...] eastern practices such as acupuncture [...] supposedly rebalances the flow of chi [...] vitalist theories were also popular in biology and chemistry, but scientific developments -- in particular the germ theory of disease and the development of the microscope, which allowed for cellular analysis -- soon spelled the end of vitalism [...it truly] never explained anything [...] vitalistic forces stood as a kind of marker for our ignorance -- in our inability to explain life scientifically, we simply posited the existence of a mysterious life force, something scientifically unexplainable [...per] weird metaphysical forces [...] modern medicine has made great strides in improving health and eliminating disease [...by] committing itself to a mechanistic, materialistic research program (that is, to science) [...] but naturopathy, which likes to boast of its long history, seems stuck [...] one look at naturopathic literature reveals that long after science consigned vitalism to the dustbin, belief in the life force lives on [...] the website of the Canadian Association of Naturopathic Doctors speaks of homeopathic remedies, stating: 'when carefully matched to the patient they are able to affect the body's vital force and to stimulate the body's innate healing forces on both the physical and emotional levels, with few side-effects' [...] this reliance on vital forces [...e.g.] chi [...] the CAND website [...] states the following: 'the chi of all organs must be in balance, neither too active nor too dormant, for a person to be healthy. The chi of the body's organs and systems are all connected in meridians or channels that lie just under the skin. A naturopathic doctor will use eastern herbs and acupuncture to assist the body in regulating the chi and achieving balance' [...] these unscientific and anti-scientific statements [...] no scientific methodologies will be forthcoming because the life force is not a scientific concept. It's an article of faith, and one that appeals to many people precisely because it speaks to the existence of something greater than that which science can investigate. And that means that naturopathy can never become scientific, unless it abandons the very belief [vitalism!!!] that makes it so popular";

(click here,

http://www.vancouversun.com/Health/Naturopathy+main+article+faith+cannot+validated/1364389/story.html)

the Washington Post's Achenbach, J. (? ?) states:

[in “The Aliens Among Us (Maybe)”{Washington Post, 07-29-2007}]

“'it [life] is chemical in essence,' the report [the National Research Council's 'The Limits of Organic Life in Planetary Systems'(2007)] says of life, a statement that is both bland and mind-boggling. Life, you'd think, would be more than just chemicals interacting. Surely it would require some kind of special juice, energy, force. But no: vitalism is a theory that died out a long time ago. It's just organic chemistry. It's just reactions involving polymers, covalent bonds, catalysts, solvents, nucleophiles, electrophiles”;

(click here,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701692.html)

Wikipedia states:

[in “Superseded Scientific Theory”{2006}]

"a superseded, or obsolete, scientific theory is a scientific theory that was once widely used, but due to emergence of more accurate present theory is no longer as popular as it used to be [...] superseded biology theories [...] Lamarckism - but revitalised in Neo-Lamarckism - see also epigenetic inheritance, maternal impression - rendered obsolete by genetic theory, miasma theory of disease - rendered obsolete by germ theory of disease, Spontaneous generation (Aristotelian abiogenesis), recapitulation theory - or 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,' vitalism - replaced by reductionism and germ theory [...] superseded chemistry theories [...] vital essence theory [...] superseded medical theories [...] eclecticism (medicine) - medical history - some say it transformed into homeopathy and pseudoscience";

(click here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_scientific_theory)

(archived here {2006},

http://web.archive.org/web/20060522121104/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_scientific_theory)

ii.

[in “Philosophy of Biology”{04-01-2008}]

"the philosophy of biology is a subfield of philosophy of science, which deals with epistemological, metaphysical, and ethical issues in the biological and biomedical sciences [...] vitalism is the view, rejected by mainstream biologists since the 19th century, that there is a life-force (called the 'vis viva') that has thus far been unmeasurable scientifically that gives living organisms their 'life.' Vitalists often claimed that the vis viva acts with purposes according to its pre-established 'form' (see teleology). Examples of vitalist philosophy are found in many religions. Mainstream biologists reject vitalism on the grounds that it opposes the scientific method. The scientific method was designed as a methodology to build an extremely reliable understanding of the world, that is, a supportable, evidenced understanding. Following this epistemological view, mainstream scientists reject phenomena that have not been scientifically measured or verified, and thus reject vitalism";

(click here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology)

(archived here {2005},

http://web.archive.org/web/20050326172042/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology)

(for the archive.org history of this page, click here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_biology)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here [entire],

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OjtHTsmPtw)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this slideshow, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Vitalism_is_Antiscientific_wikipedia_org_04_2008)

iii.

[in “List of Pseudosciences and Pseudoscientific Concepts”{01-11-2007}]

“inclusion in the list [as outside of science, as not scientific, as pseudoscience] is due to the fact that a given concept or field of endeavor is considered by scientific critics and a significant portion of the scientific community ['upon the preponderance'] to be guilty of one or more of the following: asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence; asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results; failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results; including supernatural or unfalsifiable claims […in] biology […] see also medicine below […] vitalism, theories claiming that understanding of the living matter should be radically different from that of non-living matter […in] medicine […] vitalism and innate intelligence are beliefs [!] related to the assumption that there are additional forces and energies inherent to life that have been ignored by modern biology and medical science”;

(click here,

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-pseudosciences-and-pseudoscientific-concepts)

iv.

[in "Eduard Buchner"(01-27-2007}]

"Buchner's experiment for which he won the Nobel Prize consisted of producing a cell free extract of yeast cells and showing that this 'press juice' could ferment sugar. This dealt yet another blow to vitalism by showing that the presence of living yeast cells was not needed for fermentation";

(click here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Buchner)

Appendix C.07. - No VFS in Sci. - Ref. Tools

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued).