The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued).

2006-11-19T14:06:00.000-08:00

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

06. academics and authors:

Adamchak, R.W. (? ?), Ronald, P.C. (? ?) state:

[in "Tomorrow's Table [...]"(2008)]

"two hundred years ago, many people believed that 'natural' or organic compounds [...] isolated from plants and animals were fundamentally different from those derived from minerals. They thought organic compounds contained a 'vital force' that was only found in living systems [p.052...] by the end of the nineteenth century, organic synthesis was widely accepted and the vital force theory was abandoned [...] proponents of the vital force theory can still be found on a quick scan of the internet more than 10 years after it was discredited as a scientific theory [p.056...] vital-force theory: the theory that a vital force determined the difference between organic and inorganic compounds. Organic materials isolated from plants and animals were thought to contain a vital force, while inorganic materials did not [p.178]";

(ISBN 0195301757)

.
.
Adams, J. (? ?), Easthope, G. (? ?), Tovey, P. (? ?) state:
.

[in "The Mainstreaming of Complementary and Alternative Medicine"(2004)]

"vitalism accepts that all living organisms are sustained by a vital force [...] in the extreme form, the vital force is supernatural [...] vis medicatrix naturae (the healing power of nature). Vitalism stands in direct opposition to materialism, which holds that disease can be explained entirely in terms of materialistic factors and therefore there is no need to invoke vitalistic forces [...] vitalism is usually held to be a metaphysical belief that failed the death of a thousand qualifications [...] involving vitalistic forces was seen as unnecessary. In CAM there are numerous ways of expressing this vitalism (qi, life force, yin, yang, prana, universal intelligence, innate, etc.)";

(ISBN 0415267005)

Aerts, D. (? ?), Edmonds, B. (? ?), Gershenson, C. (? ?) state:

[in "Worldviews, Science and Us: Philosophy and Complexity"(2007)]

"from the discovery of the genetic inheritance in DNA, where it appeared that life was constituted from physicochemical ingredients present in the material world, therefore from the moment that it is clear that there is not a specifically living mater, a specifically living substance, that there is no elan vital in Bergson's sense, but only the physicochemical matter that with a certain degree of organizing complexity produces the qualities of the living -- of which self-reproduction, self-reparation, as well as a certain number of cognitive or informational aptitudes, as from this moment, the vitalism is rejected, and reductionism should be rejected, and it is the notion of emergence that takes a cardinal importance, since a certain type of organizing complexity produces qualities specific of self-organization [p.012...] Bergson was mistaken by thinking that there was an elan vital [p.024]";

(ISBN 9812705481)

Agin, D. (PhD ?) states:

[in "Junk Science [...]"(2007)]

"in the twentieth century, biologists learned that vitalism is not necessary to explain biological phenomena [p.209]";

(ISBN 0312374801)

Agutter, P.S. (? ?), Malone, P.C. (? ?) {ed.s} state:

[in "The Aetiology of Deep Venous Thrombosis"(2008)]

"the once misleading notion of 'vital force' [p.x...] belief in a 'vital force' [...a] semantic confusion [p.041...] 'vitalism' in the sense of evocation of a 'vital force' [p.044...] it is tempting to label Stahl a 'vitalist' [...but] this would be anachronistic: the first clear statement of vitalism, i.e. the belief that living entities are distinguished from non-living entities by a vital force (lebenskraft), did not appear until 1774 in the writings of [...] Medicus [...who] introduced the term lebenskraft or 'vital force' to animal chemistry [...and] Reil [...] included lebenskraft as one of the five types of force in nature [...but] there is no evidence that Stahl believed explicitly in any kind of 'vital force' [p.048...] a group of like-minded young physiologists opposed to any suggestion of 'vital force' [...instead were] dedicated to explaining all aspects of life [...] in terms of Newtonian mechanics [p.068...] readers should appreciate the age-old prominence of the 'vital spirits' concept in the Galenic hypothesis [p.105...] vitalists could exclude god from their scientific arguments, but only at the cost of postulating a no less mysterious 'vital force.' The vital force allegedly controlled the form and development of the organism and directed its activities, without any need for divine intervention. By thus supplanting god, vitalism attracted the religious skeptic [...] although vitalism appears misguided to 21st-century eyes, it exerted a powerful influence in the 18th-19th centuries [...] the religious overtones seem to have been deeply rooted in medieval thought [...] the theory of transformation [...] supposed a 'vital force' [p.244...] German physiologists [...] launched a veritable campaign against the assumption of a vital force [...] that there is no vital force [p.246]";

(ISBN 140206649X)

Agutter, P.S. (? ?), Wheatley, D.N. (? ?) state:

[in "Thinking About Life [...]"(2008)]

"Aristotle [...] coined a word to denote this process of actualizing potential, of development towards a predetermined end: entelechy. Translated literally from its Greek roots, 'entelechy' means 'that which holds within itself the completion of the end' [p.093...] nowadays, we reject both spontaneous generation and the entelechy concept [p.095...] 'vitalism' is the belief that living organisms are distinguished by a 'force' or 'spirit' that disappears when they die and has no counterpart in the non-living world. 'Mechanism' is the belief that organisms and non-living objects are subject to exactly the same laws (of physics and chemistry) [...] mechanism finally won the battle because it was scientific while vitalism was mystical [p.099...] 'vitalism' can only be taken to indicate a point of view or an assertion in biology that is scientifically and philosophically unacceptable [p.104...] some popular histories have declared that Wohler's synthesis of urea 'killed vitalism' [p.109...] vitalism, i.e. belief in a 'vital force' peculiar to organisms [p.111...] the 'vital force' hypothesis was not only mystical but led to a viciously circular argument [...] the resolution had to await the emergence of cell biology and maturation of evolutionary theory [p.113...] a return to epigenesis obviously entailed a commitment to Aristotelian entelechy or to some brand of 'vitalism', i.e. a betrayal of the mechanistic philosophy of the scientific revolution [...] Wolff said that to explain the emergence of organisms from embryos is was necessary to presume the action of a 'vis essentialis', an organizing, formative 'force' equivalent to entelechy [...but] he was not an explicit 'vitalist' [p.133...Bergson's] Creative Evolution (1907) centered on the concept of elan vital - vital force [p.174...] the theory of evolution is also indispensable because it provides the only known means by which we can explain 'purposiveness' mechanistically, dispensing with 'entelechy' and the last remaining shreds of Aristotelianism, thereby making biology truly scientific [p.205...] our theory of evolution allows us to paraphrase any function-statement in biology in purely mechanistic terms. The 'temporal inversion' problem is solved, the need to invoke an 'entelechy' (or a vital force) to explain why parts of organisms are purposive is obviated, and an apparent barrier between physics and biology, the legitimacy of teleological statements, is surmounted. If it were not for Darwin and his intellectual successors we would still be troubled by temporal inversion, arguing about vitalism and haunted by the ghost of Aristotle [p.210]";

(ISBN 1402088655)

Alberts, B. (? ?), Bray, D. (? ?), Lewis, J. (? ?), Raff, M. (? ?), Roberts, K. (? ?), Watson, J.D. (? ?) state:

[in "Molecular Biology of the Cell"(1989, 2nd ed.)]

"'I must tell you that I can prepare urea without requiring a kidney or an animal, either man or dog.' This sentence, written 150 years ago by a young German chemist Wohler, signaled an end to the belief in a special vital force that exists in living organisms and gives rise to their distinctive properties and products [...] common knowledge today [...] living creatures are made of chemicals. There is no room in the contemporary view of life for vitalism -- or for anything else outside the laws of chemistry and physics [p.041]";

(ISBN 0824036956)

Albeverio, S. (? ?), Jentsch, V. (? ?), Kantz, H. (? ?) {ed.s} state:

[in “Extreme Events in Nature and Society”(2006)]

“serious scientists in all fields and of all orientations have discarded vitalism, just as alchemy was discarded centuries before [p.040]”;

(ISBN 3540286101)

Ankerberg, J. (? ?), Weldon, J. (? ?) state:

[apologetically, but within a scientific context / response, oddly enough -- delineating the vitalistic as apart from the scientific, and thus I include it here though personally not a believer; such a statement actually covers UBCNM quite well, vitalistic (here) and scientific (here) in their claims simultaneously - - the conflation mannerism of naturopathy]

"homeopathic premise 5: once administered, the homeopathic treatment will remove the entire disease, from its root cause -- the vital force dysfunction in the 'spiritual' body [...] scientific response [...] homeopaths who claim to be practicing scientific medicine and yet operate on the premises of vitalistic or occultic principles are engaging in deception";

(click here,

http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/new-age/NA0205W1.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050910001620/http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/new-age/NA0205W1.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/new-age/NA0205W1.htm)

Arena, S. (? ?), Best, L.R. (? ?), Hein, M. (? ?), Pattison, S. (? ?) state:

[in "Introduction to General, Organic, and Biochemistry"(2000)]

"the vital force theory held that organic substances could originate only from living material [...] a German chemist Friedrich Wöhler (1800-1882) did a simple experiment that eventually proved to be the death blow to this theory [...] although Wöhler's discovery was not immediately and generally recognized, the vital force theory was overthrown by this simple observation that an organic compound had been made from nonliving material [p.493]";

(ISBN 0470001372)

Armati, P.J. (? ?) {ed.} states:

[in “The Biology of Schwann Cells...”(2007)]

“the cell theory was radical for the time and irrevocably discredited vitalism, the mainstream belief that life was attributed to a vital force [p.001]”;

(ISBN 0521850207)

Arsuaga, J. L. (? ?), Martinez, I. (? ?) states:

[in "Green Fire: The Life Force, from the Atom to the Mind"(2004)]

"modern biology has renounced any form of animism or vitalism [...no] dark forces [...no] ethereal, intangible, mysterious force [p.368]";

(ISBN 1568583079)

Arthur, W. (? ?) states:

[in "Creatures of Accident..."(2007)]

"there is no vital force: the vitalist interpretation of life has been firmly defeated by its mechanist counterpart based on physical and chemical laws rather than mysticism [p.104]";

(ISBN 0809037017)

.
.

Atlan, H. (? ?) states:

[in "Enlightenment to Enlightenment [...]"(1993)]

"vitalism [...] was nourished exclusively by the inadequacies of biology before the advent of molecular genetics [...] the practical and theoretical successes of molecular biology have managed to sweep away spiritualism and vitalism to the point that they no longer have a place in the life sciences [p.036...] reductionist philosophies are no longer acceptable -- although this does not mean that we must regress to invoking spirits or mysterious vital principles [p.046]";

(ISBN 0791414515)

.
.
Atwood, K.C. IV (MD Harvard) states:
.

[in "Science, Reason, Ethics, and Modern Medicine Part 1"(2008-07-11)]

"here are a few notions that have had no bearing, whatsoever, on advances in medicine and public health, and never will: vitalism, mysticism, demonology, voodoo, homeopathy and all other forms of sympathetic magic, qi, meridians, the five phases, the four humors, the five pranas, mysterious 'energies,' astrology, psi, chiropractic 'subluxations,' 'craniosacral rhythms,' fanciful homunculi on the iris or the external ear or the sole of the foot, faith healing, other forms of magical thinking, and many more [...] the contemporary scientific revolution, in particular the rise of empiricism, led to other discoveries that set the stage for investigations in the 19th century that heralded the arrival of modern, science-based medicine. These included the discovery of oxidation and the demonstration that living organisms obtain their energy by that mechanism, in accord with the same thermodynamic obligations that apply to combustion and other chemical reactions, microscopic pathology, cell theory, biochemistry, experimental physiology and experimental medicine, including early insights into the existence and functions of hormones, water and electrolytes in tissues, the excretory role of the kidneys, the nervous system, digestion, respiration, including the oxygen transport function of hemoglobin, the heart’s pumping function, pharmacology, statistics, inhalational anesthesia, local and regional anesthesia, the germ theory, immunology, modern surgery, epidemiology and rational public health measures, X-rays, and more. Among other effects, these fields convincingly refuted such beliefs and practices as vitalism, spontaneous generation, miasmas, the humoral theory of disease, homeopathy and other forms of sympathetic magic, bloodletting, purging, scalding, and more";

(click here,

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=157)

.
.
Avila, V.L. (? ?) states:
.

[in "Biology: Life on Earth"(1995)]

"vitalism versus mechanism: how can we study life? Vitalism is a philosophy that explains life in terms of a life force [...per] things are alive because the possess a vital life force [...vitalism] is untestable [and therefore not scientific or baseable in science...] the concept of soul or life force is untestable -- it is a matter of faith, an article of belief, or a question that philosophers call metaphysical (meaning beyond or above physical reality) [...] mechanism is a testable philosophy that attributes life to natural laws [...] mechanism states that since life is a natural phenomenon, life processes are subject to the natural laws of physics and chemistry [p.010...] the majority of biologists today follow mechanistic philosophy in their work, since mechanism can generate the testable questions that vitalism cannot [...per] biologists study life by trying to understand more about the natural laws of chemistry and physics and how they apply to the phenomenon we call life [p.011...] vitalism, the philosophy that a vital life force is responsible for life, is not testable [...while] the philosophy of mechanism, which states that life is a natural phenomenon subject to natural laws, is testable, and serves as the philosophical perspective for the study of life [p.023]";

(ISBN 0867209429)

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

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3LJNW283MS8YO/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Regarding_Science_s_Ejection_of_Vitalism_ISBN_0867209429)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTCnVgsrWR4)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_Avila_V_L_ISBN_0867209429_1995)

.
.
Avise, J.C. (? ?) states:
.

[in "The Genetic Gods: Evolution and Belief in Human Affairs"(2001)]

"vitalism and teleology (the antitheses of mechanism) remain at the heart of many formal religions, which tend to assume strict dualities of body and mind, body and soul, and of physical presence from the hereafter. In such religions, nonmaterialistic souls, moralities, angels, devils, heavens, hells, and ultimate purpose are thought to exist and to operate outside the rules of biological mechanism [...] the biological sciences provisionally shelve vitalist [p.005] theories behind the alternative hypothesis that living systems operate according to mechanistic processes subject to critical and objective evaluation [...which] must be verifiable by independent observers, show logical and empirical self-consistency, display similar consistency with related external events or processes, and be capable of generating predictions that at least potentially are falsifiable [...] after passing these rigorous tests [only then] can a scientific idea be accepted as a provisional truth [...] there is no compelling scientific rationale to erect additional, teleological explanations for the origin and operation of living systems [...] if uncritical teleological or supernatural explanations are adopted a priori, all impetus for rational inquiry is lost [p.006]";

(ISBN 0674005333)

Axelrod, A. (? ?) states:

[in "Science A.S.A.P. - As Simple As Possible"(2003)]

“many scientists agreed that organic substances could only be produced by living organisms, that these substances were the product of some special life force or divine essence of life. Theologians and other conservative thinkers were heartened by this view, called vitalism, which seemed to uphold the supernatural sacredness of life. In 1828, however, the German chemist Friedrich Wohler made an accidental discovery that exploded the vitalist view [...] the wall between organic and inorganic chemistry dissolved and, with it, the long-cherished notion that life was a divine and supernatural phenomena [p.122]”;

(ISBN 0735203075)

Baev, K.V. (? ?) states:

[in “Biological Neural Networks: The Hierarchical Concept of Brain Function”(1998)]

“the achievements of molecular biology in the twentieth century proved conclusively that it is not necessary to propose that life processes arise from some nonmaterial vital principle and cannot be explained entirely as physical and chemical phenomena. [E.g.] biological neural networks are created by nature, and the laws of nature should be applicable to them [p.003]”;

(ISBN 0817638598)

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

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2CJ3NUYFUKTTG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Regarding_Science_s_Ejection_of_Vitalism_ISBN_0817638598)

Baigrie, B. (? ?) states:

[in "History of Modern Science and Mathematics"(2002)]

"a school of thought known as vitalism [...per] Stahl [...] a chemist and physician, disregarded mechanical and chemical laws and argued that the animal body was governed by entirely different principles: the laws of the sensitive soul [p.023...] fundamental issues for biology: vitalism and teleology [...per the former] does it [life] require a special substance or force or is it just a particular arrangement of the same stuff that makes up nonliving things [...and the latter] what gives living things the apparent ability to act purposively? [...] by the second half of the twentieth century, thousands of facts, extracted with the aid of instruments unknown to the ancients, convinced most biologists that vitalism was no longer needed and teleology no longer a mystery [p.054...] from 1637 to 1662, Rene Descartes [...] proposed a way of thinking about nature, the mechanical philosophy, that renounced vitalism and pushed teleology beyond the realm of science [ p.058...] all these researchers agreed that anything resembling vitalism was unscientific and that living things must be investigated as if they were elaborate automata or clockwork [p.060...] teleology, along with vitalism, must be left to the philosophers, in the interests of scientific rigor [p.065...] virtually all biologists throughout the twentieth century regard extreme vitalism is hopelessly naive [p.076...] developments in technology in the twentieth century greatly widened the kinds of phenomena that human-made objects are capable of, increasing the power of mechanical analogies and lessening the need for vitalism [p.077]";

(ISBN 0684806320)

Bailey, S. (ND NCNM) states:

[in "The Fasting Diet"(2001)]

"the presence or action of the spirit [...] there are no gauges to measure the state of the spirit, nor in fact is there any physically measurable entity that science can state is spirit [p.007]";

(ISBN 0658011456)

Baldi, P. (? ?) states:

[in "The Shattered Self: The End of Natural Evolution"(2002)]

"decentering also played a central role in biology […] because biology has to do with what we are made of. We have gone though many phases, starting from the most centric, vitalistic, and magical perspectives of the biological world to our current views. In a vitalistic perspective […] life is a special phenomenon that obeys its own laws […laws] different from those obeyed by matter […due to] a special form of energy – vital energy. In ancient times we thought we were made up of stuff completely different from […] rocks, or that we were very different from other animals and plants, and that we occupied a special position in nature […] as late as the first part of the twentieth century eminent physicists such as Erwin Schrödinger suggested that living organisms obeyed special laws and were endowed with ‘vital’ energy. Today, there is little possible doubt regarding these matters. The basic tenets of molecular biology and Darwin’s theory of evolution have been proved true beyond any reasonable doubt […] by many lines of evidence, from the fossil record to DNA sequence comparison. The most basic aspects of life are understood at the molecular level and do not require the introduction of new laws with respect to physics and chemistry. The same laws govern the animate and the inanimate [p.011]";

(ISBN 0262523345)

Baldwin, J.M. (? ?) states:

[in “Darwin and the Humanities”(1909)]

“if, in conclusion, a brief statement were called for of the sort of influence Darwin has exercised on philosophical through, I should sum it up in somewhat the following terms: Darwin gave the death-blow to uncritical vitalism in biology, to occultism in psychology, and to mysticism and formalism in philosophy. Each of these, alike progeny of the obscurantism of dogmatic thought, has in turn yielded before the conception of natural law and order embodied by Darwin in the theory of natural selection [p.088…] the theory of natural selection is to be accepted not merely as a law of biology as such, but as a principle of the natural world, which finds appropriate application in all the sciences of life and mind [p.089]”;

(ISBN none, too old; Review Pub. Co.)

Baldwin, T. (? ?) states:

[in "The Cambridge History of Philosophy 1870-1945"(2003)]

"Spencer is very critical of vitalism, the interpretation of the essence of life in terms of primitive animism [p.025...per McLaughlin] modern vitalism arose as a rejection of Descartes's mechanistic view [...and] lasted well into the 1930s [past-tense p.631]";

(ISBN 052159104X)

.
.
Ball, P. (? ?) states:
.

[in "Life's Matrix: A Biography of Water"(2001)]

"Hahnemann explained his observations by claiming that the body contains a 'vital force' that maintains the body's health. In sickness, the vital force is depressed or out of balance [...that] homeopathic remedies somehow re-energize this extraordinarily sensitive life-giving agency [p.317...] his term vis medicatrix naturae -- literally, 'natural healing force' [...] we can explain a vast amount of biology in a formal, rational, quantifiable way -- part of it through molecular 'reductionism,' part through relying on ideas about emergent properties in complex, dynamic systems of many interacting components. That there is a still greater amount that we do not understand is disputed by non one. It is not, however, a scientific way of proceeding to attribute all this murky stuff to the influence of a vital force, any more than it is to attribute it to divine providence [...this] merely adds a hypothesis for which there is no requirement, and does not 'explain' anything in the scientific sense of providing a predictive, testable theory. It is to introduce a 'god of the gaps' [...] today this concept of vitalism serves no useful purpose in the life sciences [...] it is fundamentally a nonscientific belief, an act of faith [p.318...] any belief in vitalism is not an alternative 'scientific' theory that can be judged against the criteria of orthodox science [p.319]";

(ISBN 0520230086)

.
.
Barham, J. (? ?) states:
.

[in "Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA" (2004)]

"teleological design [...as] some unknown qualitative difference inherent in the material constitution of organisms that gives them an intrinsic functional integrity [p.214...evokes] pre-scientific 'vitalism' [...which is] unpalatable to most biologists [p.215]";

(ISBN 0521829496)

Barkow, J.H. (? ?), Cosmides, L. (? ?), Tooby, J. (? ?) {ed.s} state:

[in “The Adapted Mind [...]”(1995)]

“Wohler's synthesis of urea showed that the chemistries of the living and the nonliving were not forever separated by the occult operation of special vitalistic forces. In Wohler's wake, the unraveling of the molecular biology of the gene and its regulation of cellular processes has shown how many of the immensely complex and functionally intricate mechanisms that constitute life are realized in molecular machinery: the elan vital turned out to be [p.019] nothing other than this microscopic functional intricacy. Most critically, Darwin showed how even the intricately articulated functional organization of living systems (then only observable at the macroscopic level) could be explained as the product of intelligible natural causes operating over the expanse of deep time [p.020]”;

(ISBN 0195101073)

Barlow, C. (? ?) states:

[in "From Gaia to Selfish Genes: Selected Writings in the Life Sciences"(1992)]

[per Gould] nothing in biology contradicts the laws of physics and chemistry; any adequate biology must be consonant with the 'basic' science [...while] the principles of physics and chemistry are not sufficient to explain complex biological objects because new properties emerge as a result of organization and interaction [...] the insufficiency of physics and chemistry to encompass life records no mystical addition, no contradiction to the basic sciences [p.103...per Bertalanffy] biology is based on physics and chemistry, the laws of which are an indispensable groundwork for the investigation and explanation of the phenomena of life [p.104...] Driesch stated [...] in the embryo, and similarly in other vital phenomena, a factor is active which is fundamentally different from all physico-chemical forces, and which directs events in anticipation of the goal. This factor [...] was called entelechy by Driesch [...per] 'vitalism' [...] 'mechanistic theory' has been used in widely different senses [...] first, the mechanistic conception sees in living things only a complicated play of those forces and laws which are also present in inanimate nature. A second meaning is seen in the machine-theory of life [...] in contrast, vitalism denies the possibilities of a complete physico-chemical explanation of life and maintains an intrinsic difference between the living and the non-living [p.109...] the organism cannot be explained, according to vitalistic doctrine, save by the action of specific vital factors, whether we call them entelechy, unconscious, or world soul, which interfere, purposefully and directively, with physico-chemical events [...] vitalism must be rejected as far as scientific theory is concerned. According to it, structure and function in the organism are governed, as it were, by a host of goblins, who invent and design the organism, control its processes, and patch the machine up after injury [...because] we merely shift what at present seems inexplicable to a yet more mysterious principle and assemble it into a question mark that is inaccessible to research. Vitalism says nothing else than that the essential problems of life lie outside the sphere of natural science. If that were so, then scientific research would become pointless; for even with the most complicated experiments and apparatus, it can lead to no other explanation than the anthropomorphism of primitive mankind, who see an elfin intelligence and will similar to their own in the apparent directiveness and purposiveness in living nature [...] it is just a soul-like something standing behind them and directing them. The history of biology is the refutation of vitalism, for it shows that always it was just those phenomena which appeared inexplicable at the time that seemed the domain of vitalistic factors [...] progress in research has brought an ever-increasing number of phenomena, previously regarded as vitalistic, into the realm of scientific explanation and law [p.110...] in posting 'elan vital' as the driving force behind evolution, Henri Bergson was not only invoking supernatural sounding forces (a 'vital impulse,' a 'current of consciousness'); he was also flatly rejecting the Darwinian view of evolution [p.244]";

(ISBN 0262521784)

.
.

Barr, S.M. (? ?) states:

[in "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith"(2006)]

"biology has been shown to be reducible to chemistry and physics [...] there was a time [...when] it was thought that in order to explain life one would need laws and principles of a fundamentally new kind. This point of view was called 'vitalism' [...per] 'vital force,' or 'elan vital' [...] 'the life force' [...] all this is now seen to be wrong [...there are no] 'holistic' laws or 'psycho-physical' laws or something else of that kind [...] a higher level of description [...] above atoms and molecules [p.169...] there is no hind of anything happening that is not derivable from the same principles of physics that apply everywhere else [p.170]";

(ISBN 0268021988)

Barrett, L.F. (? ?), Haviland-Jones, J.M. (? ?), Lewis, M. (? ?) {ed.s} state:

[in "Handbook of Emotions"(2008)]

"[per Panksepp, J. (? ?)] vitalism, a prevailing mode of thought prior to the middle of the 19th century, postulated nonmaterial 'vital principles' -- life forces such as elan vital. Such beliefs had long prevented powerful materialistic scientific modes of thought from gaining the influence they deserved. In particular, physiologists who sought to study the body as a biophysical entity, and to base the medical curriculum on solid anatomy, physiology, and biochemistry, wished to discard spooky 'life forces' from their science [... these wise revolutionaries [...ejected] nonmaterial 'life forces' [...] the vitalistic bathwater [p.050]";

(ISBN 1593856504)

Barrett, S. (MD ?) states:

[in “A Close Look At Naturopathy”]

“naturopaths assert that diseases are the body's effort to purify itself, and that cures result from increasing the patient's 'vital force' [...] the notion of a 'vital force' or 'life force' -- a nonmaterial force that transcends the laws of chemistry and physics -- originated in ancient times. Historians call it the doctrine of vitalism. No scientific evidence supports this doctrine, but a huge body of knowledge, including the entire discipline of organic chemistry, refutes it. Vitalistic practitioners maintain that diseases should be treated by 'stimulating the body's ability to heal itself' rather than by 'treating symptoms.' Homeopaths, for example, claim that illness is due to a disturbance of the body's 'vital force,' which they can correct with special remedies, while many acupuncturists claim that disease is due to imbalance in the flow of 'life energy' (chi or qi), which they can balance by twirling needles in the skin. Many chiropractors claim to assist the body's 'innate intelligence' by adjusting the patient's spine. Naturopaths speak of 'vis medicatrix naturae.' Ayurvedic physicians refer to 'prana.' And so on. The 'energies' postulated by vitalists cannot be measured by scientific methods”;

(click here,

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20021004215253/http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html)

Barrett, S. (MD ?), Jarvis, W.T. (PhD ?) {ed.s} state:

[in “The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America”(1993)]

“[per Raso, J. (MS ?)] vitalistic gurus and their legacies [...] this chapter describes several 'healing' systems based on vitalism – the doctrine that an invisible, intangible, nonmaterial form of energy is responsible for all the activities of a living organism [...aka] 'vital force,' this 'energy' [...aka] 'ch'i' or 'qi' (Chinese), 'ki' (Japanese), 'prana' (Hindu), and 'the innate' (fundamentalist chiropractic' [...] proponents of many 'alternative' methods assert that the 'vital force' can be utilized to prevent, diagnose, and treat disease; to improve health and physical fitness; and to prolong life. These approaches are not based on science but on superstition [...] the five vitalistic systems featured in this chapter [p.225...per] system [...and] 'vital principle' [...] macrobiotics [...uses] ch'i, ki [...] naturopathy [...uses] vis medicatrix naturae [...] natural hygiene [...uses] essence, life force, vital force, nerve force, nerve energy [...] ayurveda [...uses] prana [...] Edgar Cayce tradition [...uses] spirit, soul [p.226]”;

(ISBN 0879758554)

Barrow, J.D. (? ?) states:

[in "New Theories of Everything"(2007)]

"there is no reason to believe that the stuff of biology is made of anything but the atoms and molecules that the chemist studies; nor any reason to think that those atoms and molecules are composed of anything but the elementary particles of the physicist, any more than we would doubt that Michelangelo's Pieta is composed of raw material other than marble and stone. But such reductionism is trivial. It was worth stating only when there were baseless speculations that some mysterious substance ('phlogiston') was present in fire or some elan vital in 'living' things. As we bring simple things together, they produce aggregates that exhibit a wider diversity of behavior than the sum of their parts. Thus qualitatively new phenomena appear as the level of complexity rises or the number of ingredients increases. Such a situation was not foreseen by early vitalists [p.164]";

(ISBN 0192807218)

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

http://www.amazon.com/review/R38TR0IA17MJHR/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Regarding_Science_s_Ejection_of_Vitalism_ISBN_0192807218)

Barrows, E.M. (? ?) states:

[in "Animal Behavior Desk Reference: A Dictionary of Animal Behavior, Ecology, and Evolution"(2001, 2nd ed.)]

"vitalism. n. The doctrine that life and its phenomena arose from and are the product of a hypothetical vital force (Michaelis 1963); animal behavior is an ideal product of a supernatural life force, neither requiring nor being accessible to natural explanations (Gherardi 1984, 370) [...] 'by the 1920s or 1930s biologists had almost universally rejected vitalism' (Mayr 1982, 36, 52, 66) [...] extreme vitalism. n. 'Organisms are completely controlled by a sensitive, if not thinking soul' (Mayr 1982, 114) [p.780]";

"teleonomy. n. 1. The scientific study of 'programmed purposiveness (Osche 1973) in living organisms and in certain man-made machines' (Immelmann and Beer 1989, 308). 2. 'The science of adaptation' (Dawkins 1982, 295) [...] 'in effect, teleonomy is teleology made respectable by Darwin' [Dawkins 1982, 295...] leading neo-Darwinists attempted to replace the term 'teleology' with 'teleonomy' to avoid the twin specters of natural theology and vitalism (Lennox 1992, 331) [p.705]";

(ISBN 0849320054)

Barry, J.M. (? ?) states:

[in “Molecular Embryology [...]”(2002)]

“does a vital force direct animal development? [...] can all these precise changes result from the interaction of the component molecules of the egg according to the normal laws of chemistry? Until recently, many biologists thought that the answer was no. They believed that an additional vital force must operate in living cells [...] the theories of these 'vitalists' [...] theories of vitalists that could conceivably be tested by experiment are of two distinct kinds [...a physical force, e.g.] the possibility of a vital force was still entertained in 1945 by the famous physicist [...] Schroedinger [p.001...] based on his opinion that genes display an inexplicable stability [...he'd] incorrectly [...] concluded that these single molecules have a 'durability or permanence that borders on the miraculous' [...a] ghostly force [...wherein] the basis of life lies outside the normal realm of science [...e.g.] Driesch [...] became convinced that animal development would never be explained solely by the interaction of forces of nature of the kind typically investigated by scientists [...he] believed that living organisms differ sharply from nonliving organisms in the possession of a vital force unlike any force familiar to scientists – a purposeful directive force like that suggested by Aristotle [p.002...regarding development] Driesch considered that this could come about only under the influence of a directive vital force [...] the component molecules [not] merely under the sway the blind forces of nature of the inanimate world [...] the action of Driesch's vital force requires that the normal laws of nature can be violated in living organisms [...] both vitalist theories can be tested by trying to discover, as biologists do, whether living organisms can be completely explained by the interaction of their component parts according to the familiar laws of chemistry and physics. Over the last 50 years, molecular biologists have shown that most fundamental processes of living cells are founded on the interaction of large molecules according to the normal laws of chemistry. No new natural force [...] appears to act [p.003...] vitalism: the belief [once held] by scientists, who came to be known as 'vitalists,' that the activities of living organisms cannot be explained solely by the interaction of the component atoms and molecules by known chemical and physical forces [p.158]”;

(ISBN 156032936X)

Batchelor, J.D. (? ?), Carpenter, E.E. (? ?), Cummings, J. (? ?), Eagle, C.T. (? ?), Fielder, J. (? ?), Holder, G.N. (? ?) state:

[in "Recreation of Wohler’s Synthesis of Urea: An Undergraduate Organic Laboratory Exercise"(2003)]

"while Wöhler’s work did not destroy vitalism in a single stroke (it exists in some forms to this day), it did, with such pivotal experiments as Kolbe's acetic acid synthesis (1844), begin the accumulation of contraindicative evidence leading to vitalism’s eventual rejection";

(click here,

http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/s0003006/spapers/36eag897.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20030614184205/http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/s0003006/spapers/36eag897.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://chemeducator.org/sbibs/s0003006/spapers/36eag897.htm)

Bausell, R.B. (? ?) states:

[in "Snake Oil Science"(2007)]

"no one anywhere at any time has ever documented the existence of, say, meridians or qi [p.257]";

(ISBN 9780195313680)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this book's NYT's review, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Alternative_Medicine_No_Better_Than_Placebo_NYT_Review_2007)

Beale, J.M. (? )?, Block, J.H. (? ?) {ed.s} state:

[in "Wilson & Gisvold's Textbook of Organic Medicinal and Pharmaceutical Chemistry"(2003; 11th ed.)]

"people also tend to believe that natural products are inherently better than synthetic drugs. The natural drugs somehow contain the 'vital force' that is going to improve their health. This is actually a belief in the vitalism principle, which Wohler disproved in 1828 [p.904]";

(ISBN 0781734819)

.
.
Beall, H. (? ?), Brower, D.C. (? ?), LeMay, H.E. (? ?), Robblee, K.M. (? ?) state:
.

[in "Chemistry: Connections to Our Changing World"(2002)]

"in the early 1800s, chemists proposed what they called a 'vitalist theory.' They thought that a 'vital' force -- some special force created only in living organisms -- was necessary to produce the carbon compounds found in nature [...] Wohler's laboratory synthesis of urea helped to convince the scientists of the era to abandon the vitalist theory. These scientists decided that the compounds of a living organism did not depend on some mysterious, invisible force";

(ISBN 0130543837)

Beard, D.A. (? ?), Qian, H. (? ?) state:

[in "Chemical Biophysics: Quantitative Analysis of Cellular Systems"(2008)]

"by building biological theory on a foundation of physiochemical theory, we will ensure that vitalism does not creep back into the study of biology in the twenty-first century [p.003]";

(ISBN 0521870704)

Becker, R.O. (? ?) states:

[in "Cross Currents"(1990)]

"orthodox science [...] discarded such ideas as vitalism [...] vitalism was finally dead [p.023]";

(ISBN 0874776090)

Becker, W.M. (PhD UW) states:

[quoted from his biology text "The World of the Cell" (Benjamin/Cummings)]

“biology is rich with examples of ‘facts’ that were once widely held but have since been superseded […such as] vitalism […the view that] chemical reactions that occurred within living matter did not follow the known laws of chemistry and physics but were instead directed by a ‘vital force’ […] a view held as a ‘fact’ by generations of scientists was eventually discredited and replaced by a new ‘fact’ that the components and reactions of living matter are not a world unto themselves, but follow all the laws of chemistry and physics”;

(my database)

Behe, M. (? ?), Dembski, W.A. (? ?) state:

[in "Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology"(2002); a failed argument, per Dover 2005, ID is not considered scientific -- imagine if VITALISM and SUPERNATURALISM had been invoked, and science claimed -- oh, that's naturopathy]

"there is no magic, no vitalism, no appeal to occult forces here [p.048]";

(ISBN 083082314X)

Benaroch, R. (? ?) states:

[in "A Guide to Getting the Best Health Care For Your Child"(2007)]

"alternatives to medicine [...] alternative sources of care [...] seem to share some common elements [...] they are often rooted in 'vitalism' or a belief in supernatural forces whose mechanisms defy explanation by current scientific knowledge [p.101]";

(ISBN 0275993469)

Bennetta, W.J. (? ?) states:

{"William J. Bennetta is a professional editor, a fellow of the California Academy of Sciences, the president of The Textbook League, and the editor of The Textbook Letter. He writes frequently about the propagation of quackery, false 'science' and false 'history' in schoolbooks," (click here, >http://web.archive.org/web/20000605081336/http://www.textbookleague.org/61hlth.htm< )}

i.[review of ISBN 0201257289]

["The Textbook Letter Sept.-Oct. 1995: A Trite, Poisonous Book That Glorifies Ignorance"]

"the artificial synthesis of organic substances was generally regarded as impossible, because the formation of such substances was believed to require the action of a 'vital force' or 'life force' that existed only in living cells. This belief was a part of the doctrine of vitalism, which held that the properties and abilities of organisms transcended the ordinary laws of nature. When Wöhler made urea from an ammonium salt, he dealt a decisive blow to vitalism and began the liberation of chemistry and biology from vitalistic metaphysics. By 1850 science had abandoned vitalism, and chemists were synthesizing and altering many substances that once had been available only from natural sources”;

(click here,

http://www.textbookleague.org/64sci.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20000712165832/http://www.textbookleague.org/64sci.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.textbookleague.org/64sci.htm)

ii.[review of ISBN 0026524880]

[in "The Textbook Letter March-April 1995: How Glencoe's Text Promotes Quackery"]

"chiropractic [...] the old doctrine of vitalism, which held that living things possessed a 'vital force' or 'life force' that transcended the laws of chemistry and physics. Vitalism had already been definitively discredited by science, but science meant nothing to Palmer [...] homeopathy [...] Hahnemann divined that the solution would acquire the curative substance's essence, which evidently had nothing to do with molecules, and that this essence would revive the body's 'vital force' and enable the body to heal itself [...] does that 'vital force' sound familiar? [...] it is worth noticing that all of modern chemistry and modern pharmacology would have to be wrong if Hahnemann's notions were right. Needless to say, there is no evidence that homeopathic remedies have any more medical value than placebos have [...] acupuncture [...] my article 'Leading Students into the Clutches of Quacks' in TTL for July-August 1994, considered acupuncture in some detail [...] acupuncture is another kind of quackery that has arisen from belief in a 'life force.' It originated in ancient China, as an outgrowth of astrology. Acupuncturists claim that they can manipulate a person's physiology by sticking needles into various sites on the person's body. These sites, or 'acupuncture points,' are said to lie on pathways called 'meridians,' through which the 'life force' flows. Though acupuncturists say that their needles can produce a host of beneficial effects, from anesthesia to the curing of specific diseases, there is no evidence that acupuncture can produce any medical result other than a placebo effect. Acupuncture is, in a word, nonsense [...per the text] 'acupuncture is the ancient Chinese method of treating disease and relieving pain through the use of fine, sharp needles inserted into specific body points then gently twirled. Many practitioners of acupuncture believe a life force called 'chi' moves along meridians, or vertical channels of energy, and that using the needles along these meridians balances the body's energies' [...] notice the writers' failure to disclose that the idea of a 'life force' is a superstition, discredited long ago. Notice how the writers ignore the scientific studies which have told that acupuncture, to the extent that it may function at all, merely functions as a placebo. Notice how they parrot the notion that acupuncture 'balances the body's energies,' never explaining that this is just meaningless quack-talk";

(click here,

http://www.textbookleague.org/61hlth.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060427145943/http://www.textbookleague.org/61hlth.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.textbookleague.org/61hlth.htm)

iii.

[in “An Informative Visit to a Very Helpful Website”]

“an ancient superstition. Quackwatch offers several items that deal with naturopathy, the most helpful of which is an analytical essay, by Stephen Barrett, M.D., titled 'A Close Look at Naturopathy.' Barrett begins his analysis by telling this: 'naturopathy, sometimes referred to as 'natural medicine,' is a largely pseudoscientific approach said to 'assist nature,' 'support the body's own innate capacity to achieve optimal health,' and 'facilitate the body's inherent healing mechanisms.' Naturopaths assert that diseases are the body's effort to purify itself, and that cures result from increasing the patient's 'vital force.' They claim to stimulate the body's natural healing processes by ridding it of waste products and 'toxins.' At first glance, this approach may appear sensible. However, a close look will show that naturopathy's philosophy is simplistic and that its practices are riddled with quackery. The notion of a 'vital force' or 'life force' -- a nonmaterial force that transcends the laws of chemistry and physics -- originated in ancient times. Historians call it the doctrine of vitalism. No scientific evidence supports this doctrine, but a huge body of knowledge, including the entire discipline of organic chemistry, refutes it. Vitalistic practitioners maintain that diseases should be treated by 'stimulating the body's ability to heal itself' rather than by 'treating symptoms.' Homeopaths, for example, claim that illness is due to a disturbance of the body's 'vital force,'which they can correct with special remedies . . . . naturopaths speak of 'vis medicatrix naturae.' Barrett quotes from an undated flyer [sp.] issued by an outfit called the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians”;

(click here,

http://www.textbookleague.org/124natur.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070430173202/http://www.textbookleague.org/124natur.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.textbookleague.org/124natur.htm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,{00.00.00-00.02.42},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZolj4S0U9o)

Bensaude-Vincent, B. (? ?) states:

[in "Two Cultures of Nanotechnology?"(2004)]

"'that cells contained some special magic that makes them work. This is called vitalism. Biologists have abandoned it because they found chemical and physical explanations for every aspect of living cells yet studied, including their motion, growth, and reproduction' [...no longer beset by] the limits imposed by superstition or by the metaphysical belief in a vital force";

(click here,

http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-2/bensaude.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050321084504/http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-2/bensaude.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hyle.org/journal/issues/10-2/bensaude.htm)

Bernard, C. (? ?) states:

[in "Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine"(1957)]

"the so-called vitalistic ideas […] are really an obstacle to the progress of experimental science [p.060…] everything so far said may seem elementary to us to men cultivating the physico-chemical science […while] men who, in the name of what they call vitalism, express most erroneous ideas […who] believe that study of phenomena of living matter can have no relation to study of the phenomena of inorganic matter […because] they look on life as a mysterious supernatural influence which acts arbitrarily, by freeing itself of determinism [that is, it is teleological-finalistic instead of causalistic…] vitalistic ideas, are just a kind of medical superstition, -- a belief in the supernatural […] in medicine, belief in occult causes, whether it is called vitalism or is otherwise named, encourages ignorance and gives birth to a sort of unintentional quackery [p.068…] the habit of vitalistic explanation makes us credulous and promotes the introduction of erroneous or absurd data into science [p.202]";

(ISBN 0486204006)

.
.
Berryman, J.W. (? ?), Park, R.J. (? ?) state:
.

[in "Sport and Exercise Science: Essays in the History of Sports Medicine"(1992)]

"during the nineteenth century, stimulus theory also played an important role in discrediting the vitalistic notion of a 'life-force' (lebenskraft) in favor of a more scientific model of the 'human engine' that forms the basis of exercise and sports physiology [p.267]";

(ISBN 0252062426)

Bhadeshia, H. (? ?), Pullan, W. (? ?) state:

[in "Structure: In Science and Art"(2000)]

"with the basis of life now firmly set in a molecular context, any concept of vitalism (or elan vital) has retreated to the fringes of scientific acceptability [p.009...] vitalism is discredited [p.010]";

(ISBN 0521782589)

Binford, L.R. (? ?) states:

[in “In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeological Record”(2002)]

“nor are vitalistic explanations acceptable [p.221...] perhaps the most obvious and probably the most misleading instance is the use of various 'profit-seeking', vitalistic economic arguments in modeling evolutionary processes. All ecological processes are non-rational in that there is no guiding intellect or sentient being [teleological entelechy] controlling the dynamics, as all economic arguments generally assume [p.231]”;

(ISBN 0520233395)

Birch, C. (? ?) states:

[a theologian; see his wikipedia entry, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Birch]

[in "Biology and the Riddle of Life"(2000)]

"a movement developed last century [1800s] called vitalism. This was the doctrine that living things had something in addition to atoms [p.011] and molecules called vital spirits, the elan vital or some such [...] vitalism is dead. It expired about 1930 [p.012...per] a vital spirit lacking in non-living things [p.061]";

(ISBN 0868407852)

Birx, H.J. (PhD{philosophy} SUNY-Buffalo, MA{anthropology} SUNY-Buffalo) states:

[for a bio., click here, http://www3.canisius.edu/~birxh/]

[in "Human Evolution"(1988)]

"the evolutionary explanation for the origin of life is supported by the present state of empirical facts in the special sciences and rational thought [...] today, the evolutionary theory maintains that living organisms have emerged from nonliving structures through the long process of physicochemical development [...] the inorganic world preceded the organic realm; life is the biological extension of the historical development of physiochemical structures [p.074...] Darwin's worldview is essentially mechanistic and materialistic [...] the theory of evolution continues to withstand those onslaughts from ignorance. It's triumph is due to a final emancipation from teleology and vitalism in favor of experience, experimentation, and rigorous reflection free from theology and spiritualism. Indeed, the Darwinian revolution caused a collapse of our intellectual tradition, including the demise of natural theology [p.039...] within biology, there is no longer a need to resort to special creations or spontaneous generations or vitalism or teleology as valid explanations for life in general, and its origin and evolution in particular [...] today, scientific evidence and rational thought strongly support the origin of the organic realm from the inorganic world [p.049]";

(ISBN 0398066264)

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

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2P2VO1FPZXCAG/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this {in part}, click here {00.01.13-00.02.27},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lAhsAiKHIg)

Blackford, R. (? ?) states:
.

[for his Wikipedia entry, click here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Blackford]

[in "Bioethics Versus Liberal Society: A Reply to Margaret Somerville"(Quadrant, 2001-09-01)]

.
"Kitcher rejects the presence of any 'vital force' or 'vital substance' in biological processes [...] this is correct. Vitalism is a discredited theory and no principled objection can be made to the ultimate reduction of biological systems and entities to their physical components […] I do reject the position that living things or biological processes contain some kind of non-physical vital substance or force […] vitalist positions are not supported by reason, or by any other supposed 'way of knowing'. Any fear of acting unethically, based on a position akin to vitalism, might aptly be referred to as 'irrational' or 'superstitious'";

(click here,

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-27330794_ITM) [registration may be required]

Boccaletti, D.H. (? ?), Cherniack, P. (? ?), Cherniack, N.S. (? ?) state {likely CAM proponents}:

[in "Alternative Medicine for the Elderly"(2003)]

"vitalism was generally abandoned by Western medicine during the 19th century. As a consequence of the scientific revolution which transformed medicine, the vital force was perceived as metaphysical [p.153...] vitalism, common to many of these therapies, is virtually a taboo subject in modern scientific discourse, associated with metaphysical and prescientific ideas [p.170]";

(ISBN 3540441697)

Bok, H. (? ?) states:

[in "Freedom and Responsibility"(1998)]

"science [...] has complicated the distinction between the organic and the inorganic beyond recognition, allowing us to explain the behavior of living organisms without reference to the 'vital principles' once thought necessary for that purpose [p.012]";

(ISBN 069101566X)

Bolton, M. (? ?) states:

[in "The Road to Now [...]"(2001)]

"for animists there was no distinction between the natural and the supernatural [...] the oneness of the natural and the supernatural, or divine, was not questioned by the first great civilizations of about 5000 years ago [p.003...] vitalism, the idea that there must be some vital principle that imparted life, was the starting point, but what was the vital principle? [...in] De anima, Aristotle argued that this vital principle or life force was a property of organized bodies [p.006...] concepts of the supernatural, phenomena outside the influence of natural causes, are by definition outside the scope of science [p.013...] it is easy to think, as did Aristotle, that there must by some special property, some life force, that is the essence of life. In fact vitalism, as this idea is called, underwent a revival in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a reaction to the purely mechanistic explanations of life that followed the scientific revolution [...e.g.] Driesch [...was] vitalism's last great spokesman from the ranks of respected scientists [...but] today, mainstream biology sees no need for explanations of life based on any special force or property that is unique to living things [...] notions of life forces or vital sparks were never really explanations. To say that something is alive because of a life force explains nothing at all unless you can say what the life force might be [p.019]";

(ISBN 1865084905)

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

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23S9B6O0HF7XZ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Regarding_Science_s_Ejection_of_Vitalism_ISBN_1865084905)

Bommarius, A.S. (? ?), Riebel, B.R. (? ?) state:

[in “Biocatalysis”(2004)]

"1877. Eduard Buchner (Nobel Prize 1907) […] 1^st alcoholic respiration with cell-free extract: vital force, vis vitalis, does not exist [p.012]";

(ISBN 3527303448)

Borek, E. (? ?) states:

[in "The Atoms Within Us"(1980)]

"we often had to surmount man-made barriers [...] one such roadblock in the path to knowledge was the principle of vitalism which dominated scientific thought until the middle of the nineteenth century [...causing] awe and impotence [...] it was believed by the vitalists that the cell membrane shrouded mysterious vital forces and 'sensitive spirits.' It was an unassailable tenet that not only could we not fathom these mysteries, but that we should never be able to duplicate by any method a single product of such vital forces [...it was] an uncrossable chasm [p.001...then] Wohler [...] shook the foundation of vitalism [p.002] the paralyzing concept of vitalism had been abandoned [p.025...further scientific investigation, e.g.] Pasteur [...] claimed that from a solution of mineral salts, ammonium salt, sugar, and a very small seeding of yeasts, 'the size of a pinhead,' he obtained fermentation [...showing that] a yeast cell can grow and reproduce in a medium completely devoid of any mysterious vitalistic substance [p.043...] what the French philosopher Henri Berson called the elan vital [p.063...] lifted the miasma of vitalism which befogged our view of biological processes [p.108]";

(ISBN 0231043864)

Borini, S. (? ?), Ussery, D.W. (? ?), Wassenaar, T. (? ?) state:

[in "Computing for Comparative Microbial Genomics: Bioinformatics for Microbiologists"(2009)]

"cellular processes obey the laws of chemistry and physics [...] without the need to resort to unexplainable 'vital life force' for the molecular basis of life [p.003...] despite the protests of the intelligent design community, more than 40 years after the first publication of Watson's 'Molecular Biology of the Gene,' it is still clear that cells obey the laws of chemistry and physics [...] with no need to resort to some sort of unexplainable vital life force for the molecular basis of life [p.006...] we do know enough to realize that cells do indeed obey the laws of chemistry and physics, and that there is no need to resort to supernatural explanations of 'vital life forces' or an 'intelligent designer' to explain the molecular basis of life [p.016...] cells do obey the laws of chemistry and physics, and there is no need to invoke supernatural forces to explain the physical mechanical events happening inside bacterial cells [p.243...] in contrast to what creationists may believe, the presence of diversity is not the result of a 'vitalist' divine force [p.244]";

(ISBN 1848002548)

Bornscheuer, U.T. (? ?), Buchholz, K. (? ?), Kasche, V. (? ?) state:

[in “Biocatalysts and Enzyme Technology”(2005)]

“after a prolonged initial period of about a hundred years, during which time a number of alternative and mysterious theories were proposed, Buchner’s elaborate results brought about a new biochemical paradigm. It stated – in strict contrast to the theories of Pasteur – that enzyme catalysis, including complex phenomena such as alcoholic fermentation, was a chemical process not necessarily linked to the presence and action of living cells, nor requiring a vital force – a vis vitalis. With this, the technical development of enzymatic processes was provided with a new, scientific basis on which to proceed in a rational manner [p.009]”;

(ISBN 3527304975)

Bowler, P.J. (? ?) states:

[in "The Norton History of Environmental Sciences"(1993)]

"'vitalism' (the belief that life is a distinct force that cannot be explained in purely mechanistic terms [p.172...] the marginalization of holistic and vitalistic theories in twentieth-century biology [p.385...] although Driesch was an active scientist in the early years of the twentieth century, his vitalist position was soon marginalized as the majority of biologists moved towards a materialistic position [p.512...] vitalism was now unnecessary because machines could be made that would also exhibit purposeful behavior [p.538]";

(ISBN 0393035352)

ii.

[in "Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-Twentieth-Century Britain"(2001)]

"energy was not spirit, and explanations that tried to equate energy and spirit were merely an attempt to revive the old animistic viewpoint [...] vitalism in biology was a fallacy, useless to science and deriving its support from a desire to reintroduce spiritualistic views [p.350]";

(ISBN 0226068587)

Boyer, R.F. (? ?) states:

[in "Concepts in Biochemistry"(2005)]

"during the 19th century, any biological process that could not be understood in chemical terms was explained by the doctrine of vitalism. Vitalists argued that it was the presence of a vital force (life force or spirit) that distinguished the living world from the inanimate world. The experiment that destroyed the idea of vitalism was the synthesis of urea [...] in 1828 [...by] Wohler [p.005...] Pasteur held firmly to his belief in the vital-force theory, that only whole, living organisms are capable of carrying out metabolism and other biochemical processes. However the vital-force theory was put to rest when Hans and Eduard Buchner demonstrated in the 1890s that cell-free extracts of yeast [...] could ferment glucose, sucrose, and other carbohydrates into ethanol [p.450...] vitalism: a now defunct doctrine that living organisms have a vital force that distinguishes them from the inanimate world [p.676]";

(ISBN 0471661791)

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

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3SN1AN9HRVR5T/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Regarding_Science_Ejected_Vitalism_ISBN_0471661791)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_RQgO6YQo)

Braddon-Mitchell, D. (PhD{philosophy} ?), Jackson, F. (PhD{philosophy} La Trobe) state:

[for a CV of Braddon-Mitchell, click here,

http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/departs/philos/staff/profiles/dbraddonmitchell.shtml];

for the wikipedia.com entry on Jackson, click here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Cameron_Jackson]

[in "Philosophy of Mind and Cognition"(1996)]

"dualism is almost as unpopular as idealism. To many, dualism is as discredited as vitalism. According to vitalism, the chemistry of the animate is different in fundamental nature from that of the inanimate; the matter in living organisms contains a vital force as an essential extra ingredient different in kind from anything found in inanimate nature. The doctrine did not survive the rise of modern chemistry towards the end of the eighteenth century. The unity of chemistry is now a commonplace of modern science. Inanimate ingredients rightly combined can make something animate. In the same way, runs the anti-dualist orthodoxy, inanimate ingredients rightly combined can make something sentient [p.004...] once we explained the growth of plants in terms of vital spirit; now we explain it in terms of cell division [p.008...] the explanation of lightening in terms of electrical discharges displaced the explanation in terms of Thor's thunderbolts, and the explanation of plant growth in terms of the chemistry of cell division displaced the explanation in terms of a vital spirit [p.011...] witches, demons, caloric fluid, phlogiston, the aether, abhorrence of vacua, and vital spirits are just some examples of entities, states and properties posited to explain and predict various phenomena, which turned out not to exist [...] growth turned out to be explained by cell division and not a vital spirit [p.241]";

(ISBN 0631191682)

(for a sumotv.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3567870)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqtwKO2wskQ)

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

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_ISBN_0631191682_1996)

Brandon, R.N. (? ?) states:

[in "Concepts and Methods in Evolutionary Biology"(1996)]

"vitalists [...] claim that what differentiates living beings from inanimate matter is that the former have, in addition to their corporeal bodies, an immaterial 'vital force' or 'vital principle.' This, in a sense, gives Cartesian souls to all living things [...] by the 1920s vitalism was clearly perceived to be unscientific [p.184]";

(ISBN 0521498880)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZtoicSWxU8)

Braun, M. (? ?) states:

[in "Picturing Time"(1994)]

"[quoting Medawar, 1983] 'it is virtually impossible to think of any observation or experiment, except perhaps the total synthesis of some living organism, that could falsify the notion of vitalism or any inference drawn from it. Until this has been done, as one day it may well be, the concept of vital force or 'elan vital' must be judged outside science [...] vitalism is in the limbo of that which is disregarded. Modern biologists do not find it necessary to appeal to a disembodied vital principle...the state of being alive seems to be best described as an emergent property' [p.388]";

(ISBN 0226071758)

Brennan, J. (PhD candidate 2007 UA) states:

[in ""]

"in many cases, e.g., life, it seemed that new, special properties must be involved, but it was later shown that these things are not special. E.g., view that life involves special properties is called vitalism. This theory has been discredited";

(click here,

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~brennan/review.htm)[rb]

Bretthorst, L.G. (? ?), Jaynes, E.T. (? ?) state:

[in "Probability Theory: The Logic of Science"(2003)]

"our impression is that by 1954 the [materialistic mechanistic] views of Huxley in biology were in a position of complete triumph over vitalism, supernaturalism, or any other anti-materialistic teachings [...i.e.] the long mysterious immune mechanism was at last understood, and the mechanism of DNA replication has just been discovered. In both cased, phenomena could be described in 'mechanistic' terms so simple and straightforward -- templates, geometrical fit, etc. -- that they would be understood immediately in a machine shop [p.328]";

(ISBN 0521592712)

Broderick, B. (? ?) states:

[in "Quack Medicine: What Harm Does It Do?"(2003)]

"even though there is not a scrap of evidence that the 'human energy field' exists, modern trained nurses began prattling about 'prana,' 'chi,' 'qui'[sp.], 'vital life force,' 'chakras' and other Eastern mystical terms [...] vitalism, popular at the turn of the century in America, held that a vital force, distinct from the forces normally recognized by science, powered living organisms [...] the progress that medicine and other scientific disciplines made through the twentieth century and continues to make proves the open-endedness of real science as opposed to the limited 'stuck-in-the-groove'[dogmatic] propensity of the pseudosciences which put their founders on pedestals and raise their writings to the level of 'holy writ'";

(click here,

http://www.network54.com/Forum/219189/thread/1053550946/last-1053640919/QUACK+MEDICINE--WHAT+HARM+DOES+IT+DO--)

(archived here,

)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.network54.com/Forum/219189/thread/1053550946/last-1053640919/QUACK+MEDICINE--WHAT+HARM+DOES+IT+DO-)

Bronford, G. (? ?) et al. state:

[including the University of Bridgeport's College of Chiropractic's Perle, S. -- a collective statement that vitalism is inane / archaic essentially -- and I find this rather odd, because Perle was one of my UBCNM instructors, as the chiro.s and naturo.s then shared some courses, and as a naturo. student I was, as naturo.s still are, required in terms of oath and standard of practice, to state vitalism as scientific; but, to his credit, Perle was back then willing to debunk applied kinesiology while our instructor Ferraro was teaching it to us per Goodhart's text; one of my fondest memories: Perle handing out an 'AK skepticism' piece to us Ferraro students as we picked up Goodhart's text from Ferraro (Perle and Ferraro were next door to each other then) -- ah, little did I know then the overarching inanity...]

"[similar to naturo.] more than 100 years after its inception the chiropractic profession has failed to define itself in a way that is understandable, credible and scientifically coherent [...] we must also consider the concept of vitalism (in chiropractic, innate intelligence) [...] although there is a long historical legacy of vitalism, and although it continues to be a feature within many contemporary belief systems, there really can be no compromise on its inclusion as a defining principle of chiropractic. It was precisely the rejection of vitalism in the 18th Century and the emerging understanding (through the invention of the microscope and other technological advances) of biological mechanisms that marks one of the watershed moments in the evolution of science. Chiropractic can choose to retain its vitalistic component only if it chooses to operate completely outside the scientific healthcare community. Vitalism does not require any further or more extensive analysis before rejecting it. To reject vitalism is to simply to announce that one accepts the conventional view of biology similar to the way one accepts the convention view of cosmology by rejecting a geocentric universe";

[so I guess UBCC per this instructor has a desire for 'ethics,' while UBCNM?!?!?!]

(click here,

http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/13/1/9)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060302000618/http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/13/1/9)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/13/1/9)

Buehler, L.K. (? ?) states:

[concerning Mayr's "What Makes Biology Unique?"(2004)]

"Mayr outlines a systematic approach to validate his postulate of an autonomy of biology. This outline has three components. First, it must be understood that some erroneous principles that until Darwin's theory of evolution were thought to be essential to explain life have been successfully eliminated from biological thinking. They include vitalism and cosmic teleology, concepts that both require nonphysical forces or supernatural explanations in order to distinguish animate from inanimate matter. Vitalism and cosmic teleology (progression towards final perfection) have been replaced";

(click here,

http://www.whatislife.com/reviews/mayr.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070105225511/http://whatislife.com/reviews/mayr.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.whatislife.com/reviews/mayr.htm)

Buehler, L.K. (? ?), Rashidi, H.H. (? ?) state:

[in "Bioinformatics Basics..."(2005)]

"physicians have all but abandoned the idea of a vis vitalis, a force of life that controls health and disease, life and death. Modern medicine, instead, is based on scientific principles and its practice is rooted in the idea that disease states are the result of genetic and metabolic defects and caused by toxins, drugs, or pathogens that invade the body and distort cellular homeostasis and growth";

(ISBN 0849312833)

Bunge, M. (? ?), Mahner, M. (? ?) state:

[in "Foundations of Biophilosophy"(1997)]

"the two traditional views on life are vitalism and mechanism (or mechanicism) [...with the former claiming] living things are distinguished by special immaterial entities such as entelechies and animal spirits [...or] some particular properties such as goal-seeking or whole-forming; or some special forces such as the elan vital or the bildungstrieb [...] the mechanistic answer comes in two versions, which may be called physico-chemicalism and machinism [...with the former claiming] organisms are nothing but extremely complex physical or physico-chemical systems [...] we adopt a third option, namely biosystemism, which recognizes the bios as an emergent level rooted in the chemical one [p.140...] since nowadays vitalism is rightly rejected as an unscientific view devoid of explanatory power, we should point out that 18th century vitalism came in two versions: an animistic and a 'materialistic' variety, the latter of which must be regarded as a scientifically respectable hypothesis of its time. The animistic version, which has been called psychovitalism, is due to [...] Stahl, who, in 1708, postulated an immaterial soul-like entity as the steering force of vital processes [...] by contrast, the vital force [...per ] physical forces analogous to Newton's gravitation force [...per] materialist vitalism [...was] compatible with the naturalistic outlook of the 18th century [...] unlike its animist rival, it was testable, and was eventually given up in the mid-19th century, after von Helmholtz had shown that there was no evidence for, and no need to assume, a vital force above and beyond the known physical forces of the time [p.279]";

(ISBN 3540618384)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIyMmO3mtQs)

Appendix C.06.a. - No VFS in Sci. - Acad.s & Authors (A-B):

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued).