Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
Vitalism is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Misplaced Pages. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
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)
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)
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)
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)
