Talk:Vitalism

It seems like "the humours" in the second paragraph should link to
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_four_humours
rather than the page on "Humour"

It seems to me this article is mis-categorized. The thing that distinguishes this topic from science is the lack of the rigorous application of the Scientific Method, and a lack of of peer review by recognized experts in the associated scientific disciplines. I am not sure which other Wiki category this article belongs in, but Science or Biology is not correct, IMHO. SailorfromNH 03:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting point and one that has been debated in recent critical scholarship on the subject. Of course, Vitalism as a cultural/intellectual movement and preoccupation which is to be distinguished from Vitalism as a pure scientific discourse as is described above. Vitalism in Modern Art, 1900-1950 (Richard Lofthouse) investigates the cultural aspects of this phenomenon.

emergent process = vitalism??

I think this passage is a bit weird:

In terms of the biology of the cell itself, a return to vitalism may be seen in the holistic idea that life is an emergent process which cannot be accurately described simply by understanding any number of chemical processes which occur in the cell.

AFAIK, despite of proposing emergent phenomena, it does not states that it is due to something like a special "vital principle", but it is yet totally mechanistic. Actually, seems to me that the idea of life being an emergent process, rather than "something by itself" is much more mechanist than vitalist. What would be a non-vitalist vision of a life that also is not an emergent process? --Extremophile 19:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

WTF?

This has got to be the most over-wikied article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. A link for ATTENTION??? WTF? --dreish~talk 15:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair point about "attention", but it does not seem over-wikied elsewhere. Paul B 10:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent job!

Paul, you have done an excellent job restructuring and clarifying this article and concept. Thank you! --Dematt 11:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a clear confusion here in this article about emergent behaviour; emergent behaviour is not a controversial phenomenon as far as I am aware, but a simple consequence of complexity in non-linear dynamical systems. The controversy is only about whether things like intelligence are "emergent properties" of a complex system, and possibly whether life itself is. The relevance here is simply that not all phenomena at a high level can be explained in lower level terms, so exactly what is meant by vitalism must be clearly specified if it is not to include clearly conventional "high level" concepts.Gleng 12:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gleng. Emergentism is very controversial. If you have evidence or sources that show that chiropractic proponents have that view (not all phenomena at high level can be explained in low level terms), then that will be useful for the article as an example. KrishnaVindaloo 05:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not aware that it's controversial; the current explosive growth in "systems biology" in molecular biology, and in cognitive neuroscience (but pretty well all neuroscience) is predicated on the knowledge that, above a certain level of complexity, the behaviour of non-linear systems cannot be solved analytically but must be studied empirically through simulation. The goal to achieve wiring diagrams, of cells and circuitries are not blueprints for direct understanding, but blueprints for understanding through subsequent simulation; they are intermediate goals not final goals. If you are interested, then Eric Bonabeau has written a number of popular articles as well as his technical contributions in PNAS and elsewhere, and Burggren WW, Monticino MG. "Assessing physiological complexity". J Exp Biol. 2005 Sep;208(Pt 17):3221-32. Review. PMID 16109885 is one starting point. In the UK, the major challenge in biology is seen as "integration across levels" -this theme is prominent in the missions of the MRC and BBSRC; and is evident in the establishment of many new research centres in Integrative Biology or Systems Biology (including the one I work in). Phrased most simply, the general problem is that while strict reductionism has found low level answers for low level problems, relating these to higher level problems has not been conspicuously successful because of the complexity problem. This is apparent perhaps most strikingly in molecular biology, where the focus is now shifting to studying gene networks as complex systems with emergent behaviour as a way to understand gene function. Whether you call it holism, or integrative biology, or systems biology, the names are different but the ethos is not so different, it is the recognition that complex and interesting behaviours are often the properties of intact systems but not readily recognisable if at all in the behaviour or properties of the component parts. Nobody would call it holism because of mystical connotations; strip away the mysticism and its not so much controversial as conventional. As far as chiropractic is concerned, probably the article here on WP is a good an entry as anything, as it's a very well and carefully sourced article. Gleng 12:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Emergent behaviour, non-linear dynamical systems? Wow, Gleng, you seem to have your finger on the pulsebeat of the universe.

But KV, I noticed that Gleng tells you that emergent beaviour is not controversial, and you then asked Gleng for evidence or sources about chiropractic. Unless I missed something, he never mentioned chiropractic when he originally asked you about confusion in emergent behaviour. What's up with that? I thought we were finished with your fixation on anti-chiropractic themes. I hope that we are not about to begin yet another endless loop. Can you please clear this up? Thanks Steth 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Steth, emergentism is controversial. The quantum mechanical explanation of chemical bonding and the enusing successes of molecular biology led to the almost complete demise of emergentist views of chemistry and biology. (McLauchlin 1992). Only in philosophical circles has there been some attempts to develop a notion of emergence, but it still implies an ontological irreducibility. Its a minor topic of intense debate in psychology, biology, systems thinking and philosophy in general, and its not used in scientific testing because it goes against classic scientific reductionism. I have not mentioned chiropractic at all here, and only Gleng has added some rather narrow minded and transparently over-defensive New Age POV to the article without sourcing. I was giving him a chance to either source or remove it. Ref: McLaughlin, The rise and fall of Bristish emergentism, in A Beckermann, HFlohr, J Kim eds; Emergence or reduction? Berlin. Walter de Gruyter. KrishnaVindaloo 03:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Rise and Fall of British Emergentism, Berlin, Chiropractic! Of course. I always use them in the same sentence. NOT!

Sounds like a lot of gum-flapping to me, KV. It seems to me that you are revealing your usual hatred for all things holistic/alternative/chiropractic and you are just trying to spray your sticky scent in a new corner of WP.

Gleng, who has an exemplary record and the credentials, not to mention a few barnstars (I have one myself, you know), is much more credible as an editor. Unfortunately you, I am sorry to have to remind our audience, has a history of deceptive subterfuge in order to soapbox your severely biased POV. Yet you dismiss Gleng's very polite replys with a wave of your tongue and state your opinion as fact and as everyone's view.

For example, you seem to throw around Williams as you used Ford over in Pseudoscience (remember?) So if you lied to us then, how do we know you are not lying to us now? You see what I mean, KV? Others in Pseudoscience have questioned your use of Williams. With your documented history of lying, we don't have to assume good faith anymore you know. So maybe Gleng has some good points and edits. What do you think? Steth 05:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

KrishnaVindaloo and the validity of vitalism.

I created a criticism section for those who want to argue against the validity of vitalism and KrishnaVindaloo takes and runs... They turned it into the "vitalism in alternative medicine" section that included several well respected professions, homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, anthroposophy, biodynamic agriculture and chiropractic in between the critical citations. A Blatant lack of collaborative intent. These actions are not beneficial to the spirit of WP. Or should I say the vitality of it? KrishnaVindaloo should be encouraged to "collaborate" with the fellow editors and learn to discuss controversial edits on the discussion pages. Thanks! --Travisthurston 04:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that Krishna Vindaloo has a history of not playing well with others. Perhaps you are familiar with how he crashed the Pseudoscience article and wore out all the editors:

Vindaloo's Waterloo Steth 05:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Steth, Gleng, and Travisthurston. You are pushing a minority POV on the vitalism article. The claims made for vitalism (either weak or strong) of being scientifically supported are fringe. You are persistently failing to produce verifiable sources, and you are making a set of fringe practices look like they are supported by science. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. NPOV policy states that pseudoscience is to be explained how science sees it. And could you somehow find a way to stop each other from throwing unfounded accusations. Thank you. KrishnaVindaloo 05:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

homeopathy, naturopathy, acupuncture, anthroposophy, biodynamic agriculture and chiropractic maybe respected by some but they are not science. --Pjacobi 06:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Steth for joshing me, I appreciate your humour so don't stop. I slipped into jargon - (although I am primarily a medical biologist, I have a first class Honours degree in Mathematics, and have published fairly extensively in computational neuroscience) apologies. Yes Pjacobi, absolutely, these are not science as I understand it, but this article is about Vitalism, and these fields use vitalist concepts, as does much of science, depending on what you mean by vitalism. I didn't reference my comments on emergent behaviour except to point to a few recent articles as this article is not about emergent behaviour - there is already a good article here on that, and an article on emergent behaviour could readily be sourced wholly from Nature, Science and PNAS. There is an important point here; the early part of the last century saw a determined effort to eliminate vitalism from psychology, this effort was to eliminate "mystical" vitalism. If you separate vitalism from its mystical aspects and identify it with all "higher level concepts", then it becomes unproductively indistinguishable from many very conventional aspects of science. This needs to be discussed, as it is in the article tentatively. However if you characterise vitalism as unscientific, it is important to be rigorous, because if you define vitalism in a way that includes emergent behaviour then that conclusion is simply utter nonsense.

On references, I agree with Steth. I do not rate Williams as a source; good sources are peer reviewed, this is not; it's a popular book not an academic book; the author is not one who has published in the academic literature extensively as far as I can see, so is not transparently an academic authority; useful sources are available for verification and reference on line, via PubMed for instance; this is not. Personally I would strip out all references that are not international peer-reviewed sources, indexed in e.g. Index Medicus, and available at least in abstract form openly online. Sources do not merely need to be verifiable in theory; they need to be verified in practice.Gleng 09:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing?

Finally I note the attempt by KV to smear me (and others) by accusing me and others of POV pushing. I won't speak for the others, they can do so for themselves if they wish, but if they are wiser than me they will rise above it.

I have noted, that many advocates of "alternative medicine" here on WP, often advocates of views that I personally consider not to be well founded, complain that their opponents hold "double standards". In particular, they claim that the standards of V RS demanded of claims on behalf of alternative practice are high, but the standards of V RS for derogatory views are low. I cannot defend this, and will never try to; I see no excuse for "scientists" ever to be less than meticulous and rigorous in their sources for what they insert into articles, choosing the very strongest, and citing them carefully and accurately. I have also noted, that advocates of a pro-science position sometimes seem to regard it as dishonourable to present an argument with which you might disagree in a clear lucid and coherent form, as though "making an argument sound plausible" is somehow itself POV. I am so deeply a part of the scientific and medical establishment that I might hardly be expected to dissent, but again I do dissent, and indeed I cannot dissent too strongly from this. It seems to me that as scientists we have a duty to address not some strawman cariicature of a position with which we disagree, but have a duty to address the most compelling and coherent version of that argument that can be phrased. Our duty therefore is first to "write for the enemy", in WP terms, in expressing their arguments in a serious form. If we cannot counter these, the best arguments, then we should indeed pause for thought, but if we can, then with Popper our views have withstood a determined assault and have survived.Gleng 10:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Specific source: McClaughlin

Trying to verify KVs reference to McClaughlin. McClaughlin is a distinguished philosopher of science and historian, writing apparently mainly about "emergentism" in early 20th century views. Haven't found the original source (book, not available online), but it's widely cited and discussed. This is what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about it: "Still, the apparent independence of various confirmed high-level principles and the practical impossibility of deriving them from fundamental principles suggest that Brian McLaughlin's (1992) claim that there is ‘not a scintilla of evidence’ in favor of any sort of ontological emergence is overstated or at least highly misleading." [1]. So it seems that "emergentism" is controversial in some quarters, even if it is accepted in science; although maybe philosophers find everything controversial - this is their job after all. To be honest I'd never even come across the term emergentism, I don't think it's one that scientists commonly use. Emergent behaviour really hit the biology radar after Kauffman's work on complexity in the 1990s and after the shock of finding that the human genome contained many fewer genes than expected.Gleng 11:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)