here, a nice little table regarding best reasons for vitalism's demise in terms of philosophy and science:
001. the question to Perplexity was:
002. the answer:
"Vitalism is considered a discarded idea in both philosophy and science because it failed to provide coherent, rational, and testable explanations for living phenomena. The table below lists the strongest philosophical and scientific reasons, respectively, for why vitalism is rejected.
Philosophical Reasons (Column 1)
|
Scientific Reasons (Column 2) |
Vitalism is an argument from ignorance — it proposes a “life force” simply to fill gaps in understanding, offering no meaningful explanatory power beyond labeling our ignorance. |
Vitalism was falsified by experiments showing that organic matter (like urea) can be synthesized from inorganic compounds, disproving the "living force" requirement. |
It invokes supernatural or metaphysical forces fundamentally incompatible with methodological naturalism and rational analysis, rendering its claims unfalsifiable and beyond reasonable debate. |
Mechanistic and biochemical explanations successfully accounted for all observed biological phenomena, with biochemical discoveries (e.g., cell-free fermentation) showing non-vitalistic processes. |
Vitalist explanations are circular — effects of life are used as evidence for a “vital force,” but this only re-labels the phenomenon rather than explaining it (e.g., “dormitive virtue”). |
Vitalism failed to yield testable hypotheses or experimental progress, and could not provide a basis for experimental program in biology, unlike mechanistic theories. |
Vitalism is an unnecessary hypothesis according to Occam’s razor, since naturalistic and materialist explanations suffice to explain living systems. |
No evidence for any “vital energy” has ever been found, despite centuries of scientific investigation and technological advances. |
Each point in this table captures the enduring reasons — both philosophical and scientific — that led to the rejection of vitalism in favor of mechanistic, naturalistic, and evidence-based biology."
And yet naturopathy maintains vitalism as a basis for both its science and its philosophy. Therein, one could then speak of the science that isn't science, and the philosophy that isn't philosophy.
And as regards "what then is it?" if vitalism fails scientific and philosophical processes and rigors, Perplexity has this great answer:
"Vitalism serves as a reminder of how science evolves by replacing mystical and supernatural frameworks with testable, naturalistic ones rooted in evidence and logic."
ND Sensenig didn't teach me that in Fall of 1998 when my naturopathy indoctrination began...