Revision as of 16:01, 8 December 2023 editAtavisticPillow (talk | contribs)75 edits →Not sure about equating anti-vitalism and mechanical reduction: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Revision as of 06:20, 14 January 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,750,082 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}} and vital articles: 8 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 8 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Skepticism}}, {{WikiProject Alternative medicine}}, {{WikiProject Philosophy}}, {{WikiProject Psychology}}, {{WikiProject Medicine}}, {{WikiProject History of Science}}, {{WikiProject Biology}}, {{WikiProject Chiropractic}}.Next edit → |
Line 9: |
Line 9: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|1= |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid|class=B}} |
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology |class=B |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject History of Science|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject History of Science|importance=Mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biology |class=B |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biology |importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
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)
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 Maybe the best label could be Superseded?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)
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)