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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Vitalism is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. 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 articles
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. Wikipedia 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.
Latest comment: 6 hours ago4 comments4 people in discussion
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 Wikipedia standards. 86.6.148.125 (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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. The Blue Rider 11:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
IP, please read the information related to pseudo-scientific articles at the top of this page as well as WP:FRINGE. 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. --McSly (talk) 14:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
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. AtavisticPillow (talk) 18:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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. Euglenos sandara (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
11:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)