The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued):

2006-11-19T11:58:00.000-08:00

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

01. Schools:

the Austin College Biology Department states:

[in "HWC44 - Integrated Science Earth, Body, and Mind: Changes in Scientific Thought" -- Diggs, G.M. (? ?), Brock, K.G.(? ?)]

*that "these different philosophical viewpoints [vitalism /supernaturalism and mechanism/naturalism] have radically different practical consequences”:

with naturalism “[the]philosophical basis of science [...] science is based on the mechanistic or naturalistic viewpoint -- that all events of the universe can be described or explained by natural laws [i.e. actual, not sectarian natural law type...] scientists [...] do not resort to supernatural explanations [i.e. sectarian 'natural law'] -- rather they continue to look for natural explanations that can be tested, for which evidence can be obtained [...similarly] medical scientists have attempted to find natural causes for disease [as it is a branch of science...] the success of modern medicine is a potent reminder of the practical power of the mechanistic approach and the methodology used by science [because modern medicine is science-based]”;

with “the vitalistic viewpoint (the doctrine of the supernatural) [...being] that the universe is controlled by supernatural powers called spirits, gods, or vital forces [...a premise] not supported by evidence, [that] cannot be tested, and is therefore outside the realm of science [...] those utilizing a vitalistic viewpoint have often attributed illness to such causes as curses, spells, divine retribution, sin, malignant influences, the will of god, or possession by evil spirits”;

(click here for a & b,

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwcis1/2004/purposes.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041127055956/http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwcis1/2004/purposes.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwcis1/2004/purposes.html)

the Australian National University states:

[in "Ecosystem Health Demystified"{Cullen, R. (? ?), Hearnshaw1, E.J.S. (? ?), Hughey, K.F.D.}]

"'vitalism', the now defunct idea that a Platonic-like 'life force' is what inhabits life and nature, and which directs an ecosystem along some trajectory. However, it is important to re-enforce that self-organization is process developed internally within the system, and is not the product of an 'external engine' as vitalists would contend [p.013]";

(click here,

http://een.anu.edu.au/e05prpap/hearnshaw.doc)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050615163402/http://een.anu.edu.au/e05prpap/hearnshaw.doc)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://een.anu.edu.au/e05prpap/hearnshaw.doc)

the College of the Holy Cross states:

i.[Biology Department course Biology 114 - Exercise Physiology]

a. [on science]

“materialism: the philosophical position that observable phenomena are explainable in terms of natural laws. Natural laws are generalizations made from interpreting various observations, including experiment [not made-up wacko CAM sectarian natural law...] science requires a materialistic approach since its goal is prediction and understanding of natural phenomena based solely on what is observable”;

b.[on vitalism]

“vitalism: the opposite of materialism. Vitalistic understandings of life imply that there is some unmeasurable, unobservable feature of organisms [...] call it spirit or whatever, it is a supernatural entity, [particularly] in the sense that it exists outside the laws of nature [...] any supernatural phenomena, being at its core unobservable, incomprehensible, and outside of natural law, cannot be scientifically tested. Vitalistic explanations [...] are outside of science and not the subject of science”;

(click here,

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/exphys/lecture/ExPhysEx1Lect_pdf/ExPhys_03_L01_Into.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050915042205/http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/exphys/lecture/ExPhysEx1Lect_pdf/ExPhys_03_L01_Into.pdf)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/exphys/lecture/ExPhysEx1Lect_pdf/ExPhys_03_L01_Into.pdf)

ii.[Biology Department course Biology 131 - Introductory Biology]

[in "Science as a 'Way of Knowing:' The Place of Science" {Healy, W.R. (? ?), Prestwich, K.N. (? ?) -- Department of Biology, College of the Holy Cross}]

"let me give a couple of examples here; some of this may be new to you. Take 'the mind' -- the sum of thoughts ideas and experiences of an individual. Three different views of it would be the scientific (which would seek to explain the main based on operation of cells and networks of cells), vitalism (which explains the mind as something attached to a non-material spirit) and a number of philosophies that would explain the mind as something that sits on top of the biological aspects (nerve and sensory cells) where the mind is more than just the function of these cells [p.001...] the basis of modern science is materialism [...] it springs from empiricism [...] when acting as a scientist we must use [...] materialism. To act otherwise is non-science [...] within science, there is no room for immaterial, unobservable phenomenon [...] to inject nonmaterial and nontestable explanations into science [...] a nonmaterialist such as a vitalist [p.005...] study questions: 1. What are rationalism, empiricism, and metaphysics? Why is a worldview based on metaphysics or vitalism or rationalism fundamentally non-scientific? Does that mean that these approaches have no use and should be discarded? 2. What are the relationships between empiricism, materialism and experiment? 3. Why must one reject non-materialistic explanations when acting as a scientist?[p.009]";

(click here,

http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/intro/intro_notes/intro_1_science.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060901140406/http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/intro/intro_notes/intro_1_science.pdf)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.holycross.edu/departments/biology/kprestwi/intro/intro_notes/intro_1_science.pdf)

the College of Wooster states:

[in "Origin of Life - John Lindner, Fall 2007"; for a bio., click here,

http://www.wooster.edu/physics/lindner/biography.html]

[for the course "Belief in God in an Age of Science"]

"[per Lindner, J. (PhD{physics} CIT)] dualism, [per] soul is distinct from matter (Socrates) [...] life (mind, soul, spirit) can never fully be captured by science; belief in a life-force is vitalism. Emergent phenomenon: scientific, not vitalistic. Animate differs from inanimate not because it possesses an extra nonphysical vitalistic ingredient, but because of the way it is organized. Life emerges from matter when organization of matter exceeds a critical threshold";

(click here,

http://www.wooster.edu/physics/Lindner/FYS2007/Lectures/Life.pdf)

(archived here,

)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wooster.edu/physics/Lindner/FYS2007/Lectures/Life.pdf)

Davidson College states:

[per for the course Bio 111; for a course homepage., click here,

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/bio111/bio111.html]

[in "Prologue 1: Overview of The Biological Sciences"]

"living beings do not possess a nonmaterial 'life force', but rather differ from nonliving beings simply in the way their matter is organized";

(click here,

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Bio111/wordfiles/study guide/2prolog1.DOC)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20061012101613/http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Bio111/wordfiles/study+guide/2prolog1.DOC)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.bio.davidson.edu/courses/Bio111/wordfiles/study%20guide/2prolog1.DOC)

Indiana University, School of Informatics and Cognitive Science Program, Complex Systems Group states:

[in “i400/ i590 – Biologically Inspired Computing" -- Rocha, L.M. (? ?){homepage http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i%2Dbic/}]

[in "Lecture 1. What Is Life?”]

“vitalism: life as a special, incommensurable quality; not a viable scientific explanation, because for science nothing is in principle incommensurable; pertains to metaphysics – if the agent of design of the special quality cannot be observed with physical means, then it is by definition beyond the scope of science as it cannot be tested [...] emergence does not imply vitalism or dualism. When we say that certain characteristics cannot be explained by physics alone, we mean that they must be explained by different models for each level — namely, an informational level of description”;

(click here,

http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/pdfs/ibic_lecture2_slides.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070206111615/http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/pdfs/ibic_lecture2_slides.pdf)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/pdfs/ibic_lecture2_slides.pdf)

[in “1. What Is Life?”]

“the definitions above fall into three main categories: (1) life as an organization distinct from inorganic matter (with an associated list of properties), (2) life as a certain kind of animated behavior, and (3) life as a special, incommensurable, quality---vitalism. Throughout this course we will see that all principles, and indeed all controversies, associated with the study of life fall into one of these categories or the differences between them. The third category has been discarded as a viable scientific explanation, because for science nothing is in principle incommensurable. The question of whether life is organized according to a special design, intelligent or mysterious, pertains to metaphysics. If the agent of design of the special quality cannot be observed with physical means, then it is by definition beyond the scope of science as it cannot be tested [...] metaphysical dispositions do not pertain to science”;

(click here,

http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i%2Dbic/lec01.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070206110932/http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/lec01.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i%2Dbic/lec01.html)

(also here,

http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/pdfs/ibic_lecnotes_c1.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20070417155644/http://informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/pdfs/ibic_lecnotes_c1.pdf)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.informatics.indiana.edu/rocha/i-bic/pdfs/ibic_lecnotes_c1.pdf)

San Francisco State University states:

[per Mayer, R.W. (PhD{psychology} OSU) for the course "Theoretical Backgrounds in Psychology [...] Fall, 2008"; for a bio. click here,

http://online.sfsu.edu/~mayer/vita.htm]

[in "Module 2: Evolutionary Theory"]

"the number of prominent vitalistic scientists gradually declined during the latter part of the nineteenth century. The last great vitalist, the physiologist Johannes Mueller and the evolutionist Herbert Spencer, could no longer hold out against their younger counterparts, Helmholtz and Darwin. Psychologists in the Helmholtz School of medicine turned to the models of physics and chemistry and relied only upon physical and chemical forces to explain biological phenomena. Transformation equations were being generated; energy changes from one kind to another was an empirical fact. Mechanical energy could be transformed into electrical energy and then into chemical energy. The interrelation among forms of energy is a major physiological explanation. The concept of force was challenged by the conservation of energy doctrine. Life force was unnecessary to explain animal functions";

(click here,

http://online.sfsu.edu/~psych601/unit6/662bak.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20080714133853/http://online.sfsu.edu/~psych601/unit6/662bak.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://online.sfsu.edu/~psych601/unit6/662bak.htm)

Tufts University's Wright Center for Science Education states:

“science is agnostic when it comes to God—not atheistic, as some people prefer to read that laden word wrongly—just agnostic. Aside from personal feelings or cultural persuasions, most professional scientists just don’t know what to make of a God or gods. We simply have no bone fide data on which to base a judgment. The belief that life suddenly arose by means of some vitalistic process is outside the realm of modern science. Today’s scientific method, which is a philosophy of approach based on reasoned logic bolstered by experimental and observational tests, cannot be used to study supernatural ideas for the origin of life. Accordingly, such ideas, unprovable even in principle, seem destined to remain beliefs forever, hence beyond the subject of science”;

(click here,

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_chem_2.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041109212839/http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_chem_2.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_chem_2.html)

ii.

"basic forces [...] the electromagnetic force is another of Nature’s basic agents. Any particle having a net electric charge, like an atom’s electron and proton, exerts an electromagnetic force. This force acts as the cement for most ordinary materials, including virtually everything in our homes, such as tables, chairs, books, even the kitchen sink. Because the electromagnetic force also binds the atoms within all life forms, some [WHO?] biologists call it the 'life force'—which, unfortunately, leads some to think that life is governed by some special 'vitalism,' which is wrong";

(click here,

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_part_3.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041112212327/http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_part_3.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_part_3.html)

iii.

"nothing 'extra' infuses the mind or consciousness, just as no vitalism or élan vital partakes of life";

(click here,

http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_cult_5.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20041112174803/http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_cult_5.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_cult_5.html)

the University of Georgia, Franklin College of Arts and Sciences, Division of Biological Sciences, Biology Department states:

[in "Biology 1107 - Intro. Cell & Molec. Bio." -- Barstow, W. (PhD Purdue){homepage http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/bio_1107/barstow/}]

“[as excerpted from The Science of Biology, P.B. Weisz and R.N. Keogh, Fifth Edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc., N.Y.] mechanism versus vitalism [...] the philosophy of mechanism [...] officially marks the initial divergence of 'science' [per the Classical Period] from its supernatural heritage. In the mechanistic view of nature, the universe is governed by a set of natural laws, namely, the laws of physics and chemistry. The mechanistic philosophy holds that if all physical and chemical events in the universe can be accounted for, no other events will remain. Therefore, life, too, must be a result of physical and chemical processes only, and the course of life must be determined automatically by the physical and chemical occurrences within living matter [...] vitalism [...] maintains that the universe, and particularly living components, are controlled by supernatural powers. Such powers are held to guide the behavior of atoms, planets, stars, living things and indeed all components of the universe. Most religious philosophies are inherently vitalistic. Clearly, these differences between vitalism and mechanism point up a conceptual conflict between religion and science”;

(click here,

http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/bio_1107/barstow/whatisscience.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20030526083842/http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/bio_1107/barstow/whatisscience.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.biosci.uga.edu/almanac/bio_1107/barstow/whatisscience.html)

the University of Miami, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Biology states:

[in “BIL 255 - Cell and Molecular Biology [...]” -- Mallery, C. (PhD ?), Glaser, L. (PhD ?){homepage http://henge.bio.miami.edu/mallery/255/}]

“consequences of cell theory. Vitalism vs. mechanicalism [...] no vital force [...] cell theory replaces vitalism... the mainstream scientific thought of the 17th century. Vitalism was a school of scientific thought that attempts to explain the nature of life as resulting from a vital force, 'a soul,' peculiar to living organisms and different from all other physical forces found outside living things. Mechanists believed that life is essentially a mechanical process, it can be be explained entirely by the workings of laws of physics and chemistry without a 'vital force' [...] 'there are no laws of chemistry or physics unique to the living condition'”;

(click here,

http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/255/255pdf/255history_handouts.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/255/255pdf/255history_handouts.pdf)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://fig.cox.miami.edu/~cmallery/255/255pdf/255history_handouts.pdf)

the University of Pretoria [South Africa] states:

[in "Methods of Science"]

"the limitations of science. First, scientific method defines the domain of science: anything to which the scientific method can be applied, now or in the future, is or will be science; anything to which the method cannot be applied is not science. Second, the scientific method defines the aim and purpose of science: the objective of science is to make and to use theories. A third important implication is that science does not make value judgments or moral decisions, and a fourth implication is that it determines the philosophical foundation on which scientific pursuits must be based. Scientific Philosophy. In the course of history, two major answers have been proposed regarding the governing forces of the universe. These answers are incorporated in two systems of philosophy called vitalism and mechanism, respectively. Vitalism is the doctrine of the supernatural. Thus it is untestable by experiment and is therefore unusable as a scientific philosophy of nature. In the mechanistic view, the prime mover of the universe is a set of natural laws, that is, the laws of physics and chemistry. Mechanism is thus a philosophy which is usable in science. The form of argumentation that takes recourse to purposes and supernatural planning is generally called teleology. The scientifically useful alternative to teleology is causalism, a form of thought based on mechanistic philosophy. Causalism denies foreknowledge of terminal states, preordination, purposes, goals, and fixed fates. It holds instead that natural events take place step-wise, each one conditioned by and dependent on earlier ones. Events occur only as previous events permit them to occur, not as preordained goals or purposes make them occur";

(click here,

http://hagar.up.ac.za/cie/bed/modules/rgo700/resource/webscience/index.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20030524201432/http://hagar.up.ac.za/cie/bed/modules/rgo700/resource/webscience/index.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://hagar.up.ac.za/cie/bed/modules/rgo700/resource/webscience/index.html)

the University of Utah, College of Humanities states:

[in “Phil / Bio 2510 Genetics and Society: DNA, The Secret of Life” -- Benham, B. (PhD{philosophy} UNM), Davis, W. (PhD ?){homepage http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/Phil-Bio%202510%20Website/2510%20Syllabus%20Spring%2007.htm]

“[per Davis] vitalism is the idea that living organisms possess an inner force or energy that gives them the property of life [...] that there is a property that distinguishes life from non-life. That organic compounds possess a property that non-organic compounds do not [...] in Asia, the vital force is called qi, chi, or ki [...] in India, it is prana [...] some attacks on vitalism [include...] Wohler synthesizes urea [...] Buchner[s'] show fermentation can be accomplished in a cell free system [...] Mendel's genetic rules show that inheritance occurs in packets of information [...] Morgan wins the Nobel prize for demonstrating that chromosomes are the fundamental unit of inheritance [...] Avery, McCarty and McLead published a paper that stated 'deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) plays a central role' [etc....] Muller wins a Nobel prize for his work on the genetic effects of radiation [...therein] life has a physical basis [...] the chemical structure of DNA is yet another blow to vitalism”;

(click here,

http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/Phil-Bio%202510%20Website/class%201%20vitalism_DNA.pdf)

(archived here,

)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/Phil-Bio%202510%20Website/class%201%20vitalism_DNA.pdf)

Wesleyan University states:

[in “Science at Wesleyan 1831-1942 - Chemistry”{1967}]

“one of the most important contributions of the calorimeter was a definite proof that the law of conservation of energy applied to living organisms as well as to inanimate matter. This was a decisive argument against the theory of vitalism. Vitalism was the doctrine that the function of a living organism was due to a vital principle or force distinct from physical forces. This impact of Atwater's work is discussed at some length by W. N. Rice in his Christian Faith in an Age of Science (1903) and is summarized in the following statement (page 139): ‘the average result of forty-five experiments, extending over periods amounting in the aggregate to one hundred and forty-three days, was that the energy determined as given off from the body did not differ by any measurable quantity from the calculated potential energy of the materials oxydized[sp.] in the body’”;

(click here,

http://www.wesleyan.edu/physics/history/chem.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/19990504214615/http://www.wesleyan.edu/physics/history/cover.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.wesleyan.edu/physics/history/chem.html)

Appendix C.01. - No VFS in Sci. - Schools

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued):