Vitalism as Defunct - Philosophically and Scientifically via Perplexity 2025-10-15

here, a nice little table regarding best reasons for vitalism's demise in terms of philosophy and science:

001. the question to Perplexity was:

"Can you create a table that lists in column one the best philosophical reasons and in column 2 the best scientific reasons as to why vitalism is a discarded idea?"

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... 

Naturopathy is to Philosophy AS Circles are to Corners

here, some thoughts [perhaps philosophizing!] on the appropriateness of terms the essentially naturopathic both scientific and a philosophy by way of a Perplexity task:

001. the task to Perplexity was:

“Is it appropriate to term a science-ejected idea falsely posed as science a ’philosophy’?”

Unpacking: So, naturopathy is based upon the science-ejected idea of vitalism, at its foundation.  Naturopathy also states that this survives scientific scrutiny and is science-based.  Finally, naturopathy states that all this is a philosophy. 

I generally find Perplexity to get to the heart of a pointed matter in a very unbiased manner, and the answer provided for this question is quite unbiased.

002. the answer:

“It is not appropriate to call a science-ejected idea, falsely posed as science, a "philosophy"; such ideas are more accurately termed "pseudoscience" rather than philosophy. Philosophy is a distinct intellectual tradition that prioritizes critical reasoning and conceptual analysis, and while it sometimes engages with questions science cannot answer directly, it does not claim scientific authority or misuse scientific language to appear legitimate.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}

Philosophy versus Pseudoscience

Philosophy involves rigorous reasoning, conceptual analysis, and sometimes reflection on scientific findings, but it does not present itself as science or adopt scientific trappings to claim legitimacy. Pseudoscience, by contrast, consists of ideas or doctrines that attempt to masquerade as science but fail to adhere to scientific methods or evidence. A science-ejected idea—one that has been rejected by the scientific community because it fails tests of evidence, falsifiability, or peer review—remains pseudoscientific if its proponents continue to present it as scientific.^{[2][4][5][7][6][1]}

The Cullen-Snyder Framework (v.1.0) Application #006 – “Cote et al. 2020 and Murphy et al. 2008”

here, application of the CSF to chiropractic-centered articles that are critical of the area due to epistemic conflation/pseudoscience aspects:

001. the two articles full citations [as generated by PubMed in APA format]:

001.a. "Cote et al. 2020" is:

Côté, P., Bussières, A., Cassidy, J. D., Hartvigsen, J., Kawchuk, G. N., Leboeuf-Yde, C., Mior, S., Schneider, M., & 140 signatories# call for an end to pseudoscientific claims on the effect of chiropractic care on immune function (2020). A united statement of the global chiropractic research community against the pseudoscientific claim that chiropractic care boosts immunity. Chiropractic & Manual Therapies, 28(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12998-020-00312-x

001.b. "Murphy et al. 2008" is:

Murphy, D. R., Schneider, M. J., Seaman, D. R., Perle, S. M., & Nelson, C. F. (2008). How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry. Chiropractic & Osteopathy, 16, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1340-16-10

002. the task to Perplexity:

“Can you compare and contrast how the two attached pdf articles comport with the attached docx framework?”

003. the report/answer:

“Both attached PDF articles — Côté et al. (2020) and Murphy et al. (2008) — offer critical perspectives on pseudoscientific claims and professional legitimacy in healthcare fields, and can be directly compared and contrasted against the evaluative principles of the Cullen-Snyder Framework provided in the DOCX attachment.

The Naturocrit Podcast - Episode 016b [s02e06b] Script and Annotations

This is the script and hypertext links for the second half of the two-part Naturocrit Podcast Episode 016, aka s02e06, titled “The Cullen-Snyder Framework and AI-LLM Applications of That Framework”:

001. Script and annotations:

Standard Introduction

Welcome to, as that robot voice says, The Naturocrit Podcast, and thank you for boldly listening.

What ARE we even talking about?

Well, this podcast series is my take on naturopathic medicine, an area I've been studying for about thirty-three years, including my time in so-called 'scientific nonsectarian naturopathic medical school'.

My approach is a pairing of scientific skepticism and a deep knowledge of naturopathy's intimate details.

In previous episodes of this series, I established that naturopathy is, essentially, a kind of knowledge blending, misrepresentation, and irrationality.

I have termed naturopathy both 'an epistemic conflation falsely posing itself as an epistemic delineation' and 'the naturopathillogical':

the science-exterior is mixed with what is scientific, then that whole muddle is absurdly claimed to be science as an entire category, while particular sectarian science-ejected oath-obligations and -requirements are coded or camouflaged, therein effectively disguising naturopathy's system of beliefs in public view.

Naturopathy's ultimate achievement is a profound erosion of scientific integrity and freedom of belief packaged in the marketing veneers "natural, holistic, integrative and alternative" and improperly embedded in the academic category "science".

Synopsis

In this second part of the Naturocrit Podcast Episode 016 titled “The Cullen-Snyder Framework and AI-LLM Applications of That Framework,” I will cover:

• Past Complaints and Totalitarianism Musings, which includes:

> Applying the CSF to 2003 archived material;

 

> Musing about Orwell’s 1984 and my life [really!];

• A new 2025 submission to the State of CT, which includes:

> The CSF;

> And Application #004;

• Reflecting on 25 Years and an oath that made me vomit;

• AANMC Emails’ patterns of opaque communication of naturopathy’s essential vitalism;

• The NUNM admissions pamphlet and school catalog from 1994-1996; 

• And Part 2’s conclusion.