Revision as of 18:55, 11 June 2024 editAtavisticPillow (talk | contribs)75 edits →NPOV: ReplyTags: Reverted Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:47, 10 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Vitalism/Archive 2) (botTag: Manual revert |
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
Line 20: |
Line 20: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
|
|
|
== 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 Misplaced Pages standards. ] (]) 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. '''<span style="font-family:Sergio print;">The ] Rider</span>''' ] 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 ]. 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. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 18:55, 11 June 2024 (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. ] (]) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) |
|