The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued).

2006-11-20T19:12:00.000-08:00

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

Sarkar, S. (? ?) states:

[in "Molecular Models of Life [...]"(2005)]

"since at least the nineteenth century, antireductionists generally do not make any ontological claim beyond those that are admitted by reductionists. They do not claim the existence of vital forces or peculiarly living components of matter [p.009...] in the twentieth century, though the issue of vitalism, that is, the existence of forces peculiar to living matter, has largely been irrelevant [p.071...] vitalism was a doctrine that denied ontological reductionism because it postulated the existence of special forces in living systems. Since its demise [etc. p.109...] Mayr['s...] category of constitutive reductionism simply consists of those explications or notions of reductionism that require that all biological processes occur in such a way that they are consistent with physical law. In effect, all that this category excludes is any vestige of vitalism. The category of explanatory reductionism includes those explications or notions of reductionism that require that biological processes are explained by underlying physical and chemical ones [p.119]";

(ISBN 0262195127)

Saupe, S.G. (PhD{botany} UI) states:

[College of St. Benedict/St. John's University Biology Department, for his academic homepage, click here,

http://www.csbsju.edu/biology/profiles/ss.htm]

“scientific inquiries are based on mechanism [...which] states that the universe is rational, orderly, and governed by predictable laws [...] this contrasts with the idea of vitalism that states that the universe is controlled by supernatural processes [...and] also contends that living systems possess ‘vital forces’ that distinguish them from inanimate objects. Religions are vitalistic and science is mechanistic”;

(click here,

http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol115/science_tom_jones.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20030831042955/http://www.employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol115/science_tom_jones.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://employees.csbsju.edu/ssaupe/biol115/science_tom_jones.htm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs_-it21gZc)

Sawyer, K.R. (? ?) states:

[in "Social Emergence: Societies As Complex Systems"(2005)]

"from the late nineteenth century through the 1920s, many holists rejected materialism and held to dualist ontologies such as vitalism and organicism. Vitalism holds that living organisms contain a 'vital' force or substance in addition to physical matter [...] as science became more firmly detached from metaphysics, nonmaterialist holisms -- including vitalism, dualism, spiritualism, and idealism -- became increasingly difficult for serious scientists to maintain, although metaphysical philosophers continued to make such arguments through the 1920s. Today, dualist ontologies such as vitalism are rejected as unscientific by the mainstream of all scientific disciplines; all science is now materialist and is based on the metaphysical position [until empirical evidence warrants otherwise] that all existence is material in character and there are no entities that exist independently of matter [p.029]";

(ISBN 0521844649)

(for an amazon.com short review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/RBU99L6DKWOO4/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTDXKkbSGzc)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this slideshow, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_Sawyer_K_R_ISBN_0521844649_2005)

Schecter, S. (? ?) states:

[in "The AIDS Notebooks"(1990)]

"in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the rise of the new science replaced the vitalistic and neoPlatonistic vision of nature with a mechanical model [...] nature was no longer animated by a world-moving spirit [...] the separation of nature as a distinct entity with its own boundaries and laws, independent of the social and spiritual world [...and] an increasing application of a mechanical model to the functioning of the mind and the body [...resulting in] considerable scientific insights and technological advances [p.070]";

(ISBN 0791403335)

Schmidt, F. (? ?) states:

[in "Biochemistry I"(2000)]

"[once upon a time the idea of] a vital spirit that makes life possible";

(ISBN 0764585630)

Scott, A. (? ?) states:

[in "Stairway to the Mind: The Controversial New Science of Consciousness"(1999)]

"viewing mind as spirit is vitalism, which has no place in the scientific theories of modern biology [p.113]";

(ISBN 0387943811)

Scott, E.C. (PhD{physical anthropology} UM) states:

[Scott is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education;

for here wikipedia entry, click here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenie_Scott]

[in "Evolution Vs. Creationism: An Introduction"(2005)]

"from the ancient Greeks up through the early nineteenth century, people from European cultures believed that living things possessed an elan vital or vital spirit [...] this spirit. This view was gradually abandoned in science when more detailed study on the structure and functioning of living things repeatedly failed to discover any evidence of such an elan vital [...] vitalistic ways of thinking persist in some East Asian philosophies, such as the concept of chi [p.025...] life opportunistically saves, builds upon, and improves whatever will function. At first glance, this may appear to conflict with the second law of thermodynamics, but apparent conflict is not real. Therefore, no divinely coded plan or mystical 'vital force' is needed. Life and evolution are natural phenomena [p.146...more]";

(ISBN 0520246500)

Scully, E.P. (? ?) states:

[in “Why Is Biology Different?”]

“an insistence on the autonomy of biology does not mean an endorsement of vitalism, orthogenesis, or any other theory that is in conflict with the laws of chemistry or physics […] whenever people argue that there is an intrinsic difference between living and non-living systems, they leave themselves open to the charge that they are advocating either vitalism or orthogenesis. Vitalism is the discredited notion that what makes living systems different is their possession of some "vital force" that when removed from the system just leaves you with a mass of organic molecules. This concept was most recently popularized in the 20th century by the French philosopher Henri Bergson. Orthogenesis is a related concept which holds that the evolutionary process is somehow goal-directed to produce progressively higher levels of perfection and complexity. The application of this concept to evolution has a history that stretches from Lamarck to the theological writings of Teilhard de Chardin. As you have seen, there is no need to postulate the existence of some metaphysical force to explain the difference between living and non-living systems. The reason why biology differs from the physical sciences is because of the characteristics of living systems which are, among others: (1) the importance of history in organic evolution; (2) the possession of a structured, inheritable genetic program; (3) the hierarchical structure of living systems, and the existence of emergent properties at almost every level; (4) the fact that certain processes (e. g., natural selection) only occur in living systems”;

(click here,

http://www.towson.edu/~scully/biology.html)

Serafini, A. (? ?) states:

[in "The Epic History of Biology"(2001)]

"Aristotle concluded that the heart controlled the flow of blood and was also the source of 'animal heat,' an antique idea similar to vitalism -- the conviction that a undetectable, nonphysical 'force' keeps animals alive [...] both are enigmatic, but they roughly incorporate the notion that organisms are more than matter in motion; there is some extra element that gives 'life' to the tissue [...] it survives in the writings of classical Hinduism as well as Chinese taoism [...that] what distinguishes animate from inanimate matter, such as rock, is precisely the fact that the latter does not have the 'vital force' [p.037...] according to the traditional way of thinking, food changed into blood in the liver. It then passed through the veins to the heart in order to absorb the enigmatic elan vital, or 'vital spirit.' Harvey intuitively suspected that this was wrong and saw immediately that the notion of elan vital really had no scientific meaning or basis whatsoever [p.092...] 'vitalism,' the idea that the phenomenon of life can be explained by spiritual forces other than the ordinary physical and chemical processes [p.140...] the nineteenth century was a period of profound change and new insights [...] science, with the work of Bernard, Witzenhausen, and Haeckel, was beginning its final abandonment of vitalism [p.231]";

(ISBN 073820577X)

Seward, A.C. (? ?) states:

[in "Darwin and Modern Science - Essays in Commemoration of the Centenary of the Birth of Charles Darwin and of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Publication of the Origin of Species"(2007)]

"[per Haeckel] 'then (1866), as now, being convinced of the unity of nature, the fundamental identity of the agencies at work in the inorganic and organic worlds, I discarded vitalism, teleology, and all hypotheses of a mystic character' [p.139...] 'Darwin's monistic principle of selection [...] is wholly destructive of dualistic vitalism' [p.142...]' in strict contradiction to this mystical dualism, which is generally connected with teleology and vitalism, Darwin always maintained the complete unity of human nature' [p.150]";

(ISBN 1406761753)

Shear, J. (? ?) states:

[in "Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem"(1997)]

"nobody would have taken vitalism seriously for a minute if the vitalists hadn't had a set of independently describable phenomena – of reproduction, metabolism, self-repair and the life – that their postulated fundamental life-element was hoped to account for. Once these phenomena were otherwise accounted for, vitalism fell flat [p.035]";

(ISBN 026269221X)

Shu, F.H. (PhD{astronomy} Harvard) states:

[for a brief bio., click here,

http://www.shawprize.org/en/shawprize/adjudicators/shu.html]

[in "The Physical Universe: An Introduction to Astronomy"(1982)]

"for a long time people thought there must be a special 'life force' which distinguishes living things from nonliving things. This notion that the behavior of living things cannot, even in principle, be understood by ordinary processes of physics and chemistry goes by the name of vitalism. Modern biology has completely discredited vitalism. It is extremely regrettable that vitalistic notions can still be found in many unenlightened regions of this world. To cite a refuge often adopted by vitalists, consider the thermodynamics of living things growing in an organized way [...] it might be thought that living things violate the second law of thermodynamics. This is, however, false [...because] living things are 'open systems' [...] a living thing gains internal order only by introducing more disorder into its surroundings [...] living things do not, in fact, violate the second law. The persistent vitalist might argue that even the gaining of local order at the expense of introducing general disorder seems to require something special. And so it does; it requires an input of free energy [...] living things cannot be regarded as unique in their ability to produce circumstances which violate thermodynamic intuition [p.498...] for some years, vitalists maintained that organic molecules could be made only inside a living organism, i.e., that a 'vital force' made organic chemistry intrinsically different from inorganic chemistry. This myth received a crushing blow in 1828 [p.512...] in chapter 19 we saw that life, once started, could sustain and naturally gain in complexity without the intervention of vitalism [p.528]";

(ISBN 0935702059)

(for the publisher's page for this book, click here,

http://www.uscibooks.com/shu1.htm)

(for an amazon.com short review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3BJFJPJ8BWLTJ/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this amazon short review, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_Shu_F_H_ISBN_0935702059_1982_2)

[defunct](for a sumo.tv slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3567938)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXXpkrmXCaI)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this youtube.com slideshow, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_Shu_F_H_ISBN_0935702059_1982)

[defunct](for a sumo.tv slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3567938)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this sumo.tv slideshow, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Science_Rejects_Vitalism_Shu_F_H_ISBN_0935702059_1982_3)

Silver, L. (? ?) states:

[in "The Environment's Best Friend: GM or Organic?"]

"before the 18th century, the material substance of living organisms was thought to be fundamentally different in a vitalistic or spiritual sense from that of nonliving things. Organisms and their products were organic by definition, while nonliving things were mineral or inorganic. But with the invention of chemistry, starting with Lavoisier's work in 1780, it became clear that all material substances are constructed from the same set of chemical elements. As all scientists know today, the special properties of living organic matter emerge from the interactions of a large variety of complex, carbon-based molecules. Chemists now use the word organic to describe all complex, carbon-based molecules whether or not they are actually products of any organism";

(click here,

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/article.asp?id=5680)

Singer, S.J. (? ?) states:

[in "The Splendid Feast of Reason"(2003)]

"modern biology and the response to vitalism [...] biology, the science of life [...] the scientific knowledge of human beings can be expected to encounter considerable resistance if it conflicts with the unscientific beliefs and [p.039] practices of powerful institutions in society such as religion, the law, and the academy [...] the axiomatic basis of modern biology is that living systems must at all times conform to the universal laws and operations of physics and chemistry. They cannot transcend them, as, for example, by miracles of superhuman or divine intervention [p.040...] in earlier times, most thoughtful people considered life, especially human life, to be too extraordinary and too intricate to be constrained like dust by the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry. Not comprehending modern biology, many in our times still consider this to be so [...] vitalism, the ancient doctrine that life transcends ordinary physics and chemistry, including a belief in a divine creation and the existence of a life following death, still holds sway over the Western world. Anyone who believes in an afterlife is a vitalist [...but,] life is governed mainly by the principles of irreversible thermodynamics [...] life is therefore a most unusual state of matter [...and] required nothing outside the realm of physics and chemistry to have evolved [p.041...] vitalism, which is mysticism, has no bearing on the design of living things [p.064...] [there's more]";

(ISBN 0520239113)

.
.
Smith, J.C. (PhD{psychology} MSU 1975) states:
.

[for his academic homepage, click here,

http://faculty.roosevelt.edu/jsmith/]

[in "Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker's Toolkit"(2009)]

"the traditional paranormal explanation is that acupuncture [p.006] frees the flow of a mystical energy, qi (or chi) [p.007...] children [...] in attempting to make sense of the world [...] may erroneously think of objects as possessing consciousness and agency or intentionality [...] eventually children outgrow such simplistic thinking patterns and learn to explain the world more accurately in physical, biological, and psychological terms [...] the idea that objects possess energy and intentionality is called vitalistic causality or vitalism, a type of thinking that also characterizes adult belief in the paranormal. Vitalistic thinking also characterizes early human thought and philosophy [...e.g.] a life-giving soul [...] in the 19th and 20th centuries physiologists proposed a vital force underlying all living things [...aka] life force, vis essentialis, vis viva, entelechy, elan vital, and soul atoms [...] vitalism is clearly a paranormal concept. There is no evidence of vitalistic energy, much less a thinking energy with intentionality, outside the energies physics has discovered. Children give up such vitalistic thinking as they mature [...] civilization gave up vitalistic explanations for those based on science [...] vitalism persists in energy treatments of complementary and alternative medicine [p.271]";

(ISBN 1405181222)

(for a Naturocrit entry that parallels this excerpt, click here,

http://naturocrit.blogspot.com/2010/04/vitalism-is-paranormal-immature-and.html)

Smocovitis, V.B. (PhD{ecology and evolutionary biology} Cornell) states:

[for her academic homepage, click here,

http://web.history.ufl.edu/new/directory/faculty_profiles/smocovitis.htm]

[in "Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology"(1996)]

"biology clearly had to grow out of its 'metaphysical' stage of development and become a unified mature science [...] vitalism, which was too metaphysical, and mechanism, which drew [then] too heavily on Newtonian physics, were inadequate for a mature science of life [p.104...] 'biology had to be free of any taint or suspicion of philosophical idealism, vitalism, or teleology' [p.116...] whether emergent properties can be deemed metaphysical is a contentious issue for philosophers of biology [...] though there are fundamental distinctions between these terms [...] emergentism functions in the same manner as vitalism, teleology, and other unarticulated metaphysical elements [even if not metaphysical]: all 'lift' biology from complete reduction to the physical sciences [p.129]";

(ISBN 0691033439)

ii.

[in "Modern Biology"(2007-11-14)]

"especially critical to the development of modern biology was the period between 1828, when Friedrich Wöhler [...] artificially synthesized the organic compound urea in the laboratory (fueling the debate between mechanism and vitalism), and 1866, the year Gregor Mendel (1822–1884) published his theory of heredity. During this time the conceptual foundations of the new science were laid, and many of the defining criteria of nearly all the major subdisciplines of biology were established [...] by the late nineteenth century, persistent questions of biological development were being tackled with techniques and insights gleaned from cytology and cellular physiology, leading to a renewal of the debate between mechanism and vitalism [...] in 1953 vitalistic approaches and philosophies received two body blows. First, the discovery of the structure of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) [...] the second body blow to vitalism was delivered in the same year by news of the celebrated experiment simulating the origins of life under early conditions on earth by Stanley Miller (b. 1930) and Harold C. Urey (1893–1981) at the University of Chicago. Miller and Urey enclosed the constituents of the early atmosphere of earth (methane, ammonia, and hydrogen gas) in a glass vessel and applied a high-energy electrical discharge to it, 'sparking' it to simulate lightning [...] vitalism is no longer tenable in biology";

(click here,

http://science.jrank.org/pages/8468/Biology-Modern-Biology.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20071114024232/http://science.jrank.org/pages/8468/Biology-Modern-Biology.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://science.jrank.org/pages/8468/Biology-Modern-Biology.html)

Smolin, L. (? ?) states:

[in "The Life of the Cosmos"(1999)]

[I especially think about this as pertains to the Textbook of Natural Medicine (3rd ed., 2005) stating evolution is supernatural / outside the laws of physics, thus justifying the naturopathic premise of vitalism-teleology]

"a philosophy called vitalism that was popular in the last century [the 1800s...that] living and nonliving matter may obey different laws [...] it is only with the physics of the 20th century that we have been able to understand how living things are constructed of the same ordinary atoms that make up rocks and stars [p.26...] one argument that was often made for vitalism during the last century [the 1800s] is that the matter living things are made of must be excluded from the strictures of the laws of thermodynamics [...] the laws of thermodynamics are not in contradiction with the existence or evolution of life. Not only is the existence of life compatible with thermodynamics, the two subjects are actually so intimately related that the clearest characterization of life that I know of is given in thermodynamic terms [p.028]";

(ISBN 0195126645)

(click here,

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/smolin-cosmos.htm)

(archived here,

)

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

)

Sober, E. (? ?) states:

[in "Philosophy of Biology"(2000)]

"the domain of the science in question [...per] physics is about any and all objects that are made of matter. Biology is about objects that are alive. And psychology is about objects that have minds [...] physicalism, claims that all living things are physical objects [...] if you take an organism, no matter how complex, and break it down into its constituents, you will find matter and only matter [...] that living things are made of the same basic ingredients as nonliving things [...different in terms of] how those basic ingredients are put together [...] vitalism [...] rejects this physicalistic picture [...] it says living things are alive because they contain an immaterial ingredient [p.22] an elan vital [...] physicalism maintains that all living things are made of matter and of nothing else, whereas vitalism asserts that living things contain an immaterial substance -- an elan vital [...] according to vitalism, two objects could be physically identical even though one of them is alive while the other is not. The first could contain the life-giving immaterial [p.023] ingredient while the second fails to do so [...] vitalism is easiest to take seriously when science is ignorant of what lies behind various biological processes [...per] an immaterial life principle [...per] respiration [...and] vitalistic theories [per heredity...but] vitalism does not become plausible just because we currently lack of physical explanation [...and per teleology] the theory of natural selection allows us to formulate an explanation of this fact about organisms that does not require vitalism [p.024...] the scientific revolution in the seventeenth century eliminated teleology from physics [p.084...] vitalism is held in low repute these days by biologists because no strong positive argument on its behalf has ever been constructed [...] it is a sound working hypothesis [...] that living things are nothing but structured chunks of matter [p.024...and in terms of dualism's unsupported 'mind without matter' claims as compared to science's increasing evidence of 'mind due to and a property of brain' similarly] supports physicalism over vitalism in biology [p.025]";

(ISBN 0813391261)

Sokal, A.D. (PhD{physics} Princeton) states:

[for his academic homepage, click here,

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal.html]

[for a wikipedia.org biography page, click here,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sokal]

[in “Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow Travelers?” {from “Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public”(2006); Fagan, G.G. (? ?), editor}]

"for my own part, I have been struck by the fact that nearly all the pseudoscientific systems to be examined in this essay are based philosophically on vitalism: that is, the idea that living beings, and especially human beings, are endowed with some special quality (life energy, elan vital, prana, qi) that transcends the ordinary laws of physics. Mainstream science has rejected vitalism since at least the 1930s, for a plethora of good reasons that have only become stronger with time (see e.g. Mayr 1982). But these good reasons are understood by only a tiny fraction of the populace, even in the industrialized countries where science is supposedly held in high esteem. Moreover -- and perhaps much more importantly -- the anti-vitalism characteristic of modern science is deeply unsettling emotionally to most (perhaps all) people, even to those who are not conventionally religious [p.347…for instance, and essential to naturopathy] homeopathy was developed by […] Hahnemann […] and its basic principles remain largely unchanged to this day, despite radical advances in our understanding of physics, chemistry, and biology that thoroughly undermine its alleged scientific basis. Its central tenets are the so-called law of similars, or ‘like cures like’ […] the so-called law of potentizations […] and a vitalist theory of biology, which holds that living beings are endowed with some special quality (‘vital force’) that transcends the ordinary laws of physics […these] homeopathic remedies […] are pure water and starch; the alleged ‘active ingredient’ is so highly diluted that in most cases not a single molecule remains in the final product [p.348]."

(ISBN 0415305934)

(click here, http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/pseudoscience_rev.pdf)

(for an amazon.com short review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/R2LH4C4BYBGS8W/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmWKV2Cr1d8)

(for a digg.com social bookmark of this slideshow, click here,

http://digg.com/general_sciences/Vitalism_Is_Nonscientific_Sokal_A_PhD_Physics_2006_2)

ii.

[in "Beyond the Hoax: Science, Philosophy and Culture"(2008)]

"[same, generally, as i. above, mainly p.272]";

(ISBN 0199239207)

Splane, L. (? ?) states:

[in "Nutritional Self-Defense: Better Health in a Polluted, Over-Processed, and Stressful World"(2003)]

"vitalism is linked to the concept of an immortal human soul, which links it to religious ideology [...] the transcendental temptation. Some health professionals become quacks [...per] paranormal attraction [...] vegetarianism, chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy, energy medicine, therapeutic touch, crystal healing, etc. are founded on vitalism. Vitalists are antiscientific, as they abhor the reductionism, materialism, and mechanistic causal processes of science. They prefer subjective experience to objective testing, and place intuition above reason and logic [p.019…] the whole philosophy of vitalism or 'intelligent force' has long been invalidated by science [p.022]";

(ISBN 0945962134)

Stenesh, J. (? ?) states:

[in "Biochemistry"(1998)]

"for a long time, many people believed that reactions in living organisms (as distinct from those in nonliving systems) required a special ‘vital’ force. Only when this theory of ‘vitalism’ was discarded could development of biochemistry proceed […via] Lavoisier […who] conducted experiments on respiration and combustion and showed that both processes converted organic matter to carbon dioxide and water […and] Wohler […who] succeeded in synthesizing urea […] vitalism was finally rejected as a scientific theory when Eduard Buchner (1896) obtained a cell-free extract from yeast that was capable of carrying out fermentation […and] Sumner (1926) crystallized the enzyme urease from jack beans […] at least for central themes have come to characterize biochemistry: 1. reactions carried out by living organisms obey the laws of chemistry and physics that describe reactions in the laboratory […] no special forces such as ‘vitalism,’ or special processes like ‘spontaneous generation,’ play a role in the synthesis, degradation, and interconversions of compounds found in living cells [p.xxv]";

(ISBN 0306457334)

(for a short amazon.com review of this, click here,

)

Stevenson, I. (MD ?) states:

[in "Children Who Remember Previous Lives: A Question of Reincarnation"(2000) {a pro-reincarnation argument}]

"the evidence for reincarnation [! huh?] suggests that living human beings [...] have minds, or souls if you like, that animate them when they are living and that survive after they die. [But admits] most biologists will stigmatize this suggestion as vitalism and declare it to have been discredited decades ago";

(ISBN 0786409134)

Strickberger, M.W. (? ?) states:

[in “Evolution”(2000)]

“at first this differentiation of undifferentiated tissue was believed to occur because of mystical, nonphysical forces, such as Aristotle's suggestion of the contribution of 'form' by the seminal fluid, or Harvey's [...] 'aura seminalis,' or Wolff's [...] 'vis essentialis.' These explanations were vitalistic: the ascribe to living beings a vital force that cannot be explained by any underlying physical or chemical principles [...] Wohler's [...] 1828 biochemical synthesis of an organic compound [...] showed there was no mystical essence in organic molecules that had to be understood outside the laws of chemistry [p.013...] at times Lamarck ascribed his belief in evolutionary 'progress' to an inner, mystical, vitalistic property of life [...per] ethereal fire [...] at other times he denied such supernatural causes [p.024...] biological evolution expressed through changes in factors such as morphology, physiology, and behavior arises from developmental changes caused by genes, rather than from nongenetic vitalistic causes such as mysteriously appearing 'archetypes' [...] and 'orthogenetic' drives [p.357...] vitalistic – based on a belief in mystical states possessing unexplicable attributes. In contrast to vitalism, scientists argue with considerable success that hierarchical levels are explainable. For biology, vitalism is no longer an issue [p.613...] orthogenesis: the concept that evolution of a group of related species proceeds in a particular direction [...] because of unknown internal or vitalistic causes rather than because of nonmystical factors such as selection [p.649...] vitalism: the concept that the activities of living organisms cannot be explained by any underlying physical or chemical principles but arise from mystical or supernatural causes [p.657]”;

(ISBN 0763710660)

Sussman, A. (PhD{biochemistry} PU) states:

[in "Dr. Art's Guide to Science: Connecting Atoms, Galaxies, and Everything in Between"(2006)]

"vitalism [...] this theory has been disproved [...] instead of vitalism we now have a systems view of life [...] the main error of vitalism is that this [discarded] theory mistakenly states that there must be some special ingredient that either is itself alive, or that somehow changes a collection of nonliving stuff into living beings [...] vitalism is one of the original [now discarded] theories that tried to explain the nature of life [...per] living things [...being] made up of special stuff compared to nonliving things [p.162]";

(ISBN 0787983268)

(for this book's homepage, click here,

http://www.guidetoscience.net/cs/drart/print/docs/drart/home.htm)

ii.

[in "Glindex"]

"vitalism: mistaken theory that some special ingredient causes things to be alive. Instead, we now have a systems view of life (p.162-163)";

(click here,

http://www.guidetoscience.net/cs/drart/print/docs/drart/glindex.htm#sz)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.guidetoscience.net/cs/drart/print/docs/drart/glindex.htm#sz)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/20061024133628/http://www.guidetoscience.net/cs/drart/print/docs/drart/glindex.htm)

Swedin, E.G. (? ?) states:

[in "Science in the Contemporary World: An Encyclopedia"(2005)]

"for centuries, the issue of vitalism had tormented the life sciences [...] life seemed to be an exception, relying on some unknown 'vital principle' that could not be understood in mechanical terms. Advances in ontogeny that explained the development of living organisms, the discovery of the structure of DNA, and a greater understanding of the inner workings of cells via cytology finally put vitalism to rest in the twentieth century [p.033...] vitalism [...] the belief that an unknown 'vital principle' animated living beings that could not be explained in just physical terms [p.066]";

(ISBN 1851095241)

Taliaferro, C. (? ?) states:

[in "Evidence and Faith : Philosophy and Religion since the Seventeenth Century"(2005)]

"here is a typical line from Dennett on dualism [...per Consciousness Explained] 'dualism...and vitalism (two theories which are in the Cambridge Platonist tradition) have been relegated to the trash heap of history, along with alchemy and astrology. Unless you are also prepared to declare that the world is flat and the sun is a fiery chariot pulled by winged horses -- unless, in other words, your defiance of modern science is quite complete -- you won't find any place to stand and fight for these obsolete ideas' [p.060]";

(ISBN 0521790271)

Tallack, P. (? ?) {ed.} states:

[in "The Science Book"(2006)]

"[Phil Ball writes, once] it was widely held that living or 'organic' matter was fundamentally distinct from inorganic matter and that some 'vital force' animated the living world [...this] idea of vitalism rested more on religious conviction [rather] than on scientific evidence, [yet] it seemed impossible to to make organic matter from inorganic reagents ...until Wöhler's] 'epoch-making' experiment [...] proof that chemical processes of life required no vital force came in 1897, when Eduard Buckner demonstrated fermentation in the absence of cells [p.142...and Richard Dawkins writes, in 'The Digital River'] there is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes of digital information [p.376]";

(ISBN 1841882542)

Tauber, A.I. (? ?) states:

[in "The Immune Self: Theory or Metaphor?"(1996)]

"as the nature of living processes become the focus of scientific inquiry, teleology, as a defining principle, was consistently rejected along with vitalism. This trend become especially powerful after the concept of spontaneous generation was discarded; the demonstration of the conservation of energy further discredited vitalism [p.049]";

(ISBN 0521574439)

Ten, C.L. (? ?) states:

[in "The Nineteenth Century"(2003)]

"materialism eliminates teleology, and uses only causal explanation [p.185...] the full demise of vitalism had to await the twentieth century [...] the factors which led to the decline of vitalism in the nineteenth century lay both within and without biology [p.277...] the close connection between physiological function and evolution in Darwin's account eventually made vitalism an outsider to sciences as Darwin's views, and their improved descendants, came to occupy center stage in biology [...] it was only after Darwin's conception of evolution by natural selection was grasped that vitalism came to fall in favor very generally [p.278]";

(ISBN 0415308798)

Thilly, F. (? ?), Paulsen, F. (? ?) state:

[in "Introduction to Philosophy"(1895)]

"biology has rejected vital force as a special principle alongside of physical forces in organic bodies [p.104...] 'the erroneous doctrine of vital force, under whatever form or deceptive guise it may be' [p.105]";

(no ISBN, too old; publ. H. Holt and Co. )

Tigerstedt, R. (? ?) states:

[in "A Text-book of human physiology"(1906)]

"the ancient vitalism, now finally abandoned. That doctrine relied upon a capricious phantom of vital force, which, entirely unfettered by natural law, at times was responsible for the most unheard of results, and at others vanished completely from the field [p.002]";

(ISBN none, too old; publ. D. Appleton and Co.)

Thomson, W.H. (? ?) states:

[in "What is Physical Life?: Its Origins and Nature"(1909)]

"a sort of supernatural, vital force was imagined to be the only explanation here, and in medical science particularly this imaginary vital force arrested all progress for many centuries [...] this once crudely conceived mythical vital force [...] because there is no vital force, therefore it is concluded that what things and forces we know of must account for life by supplying everything needed both for its origin and for its developments. Those things are, first, matter as a substance, and then such forces that we know of that act on matter [p.036...] because we know nothing else except the properties of matter and of force, therefore there is nothing besides these for life to com from [p.037]";

(ISBN none, too old; publ. Dodd, Mead)

Torley, V.J. (? ?) states:

[in "Chapter 1 - What Does it Mean to Be Alive?"]

"one fact that emerges from Wilson's (1996) overview of the historical debate between mechanists and vitalists regarding 'life' is that both camps argued within a two-dimensional framework. The key points at issue were: what kinds of laws applied to living things, and what sort of material they were made of. Mechanists asserted that the known laws of physics and chemistry, operating on ordinary matter in motion, could explain the phenomenon of life, while vitalists typically envisaged living things as being controlled by a 'vital force' (elan vital) that obeyed special non-physicochemical laws and directed the continual generation of a unique class of organic compounds found within the bodies of living organisms. Indeed, vitalistic chemists (such as Berzelius) believed that these compounds could only be generated within living organisms, until other chemists succeeded in synthesizing them via non-biological processes in the 19th century. These advances, coupled with experimental demonstrations that living things obeyed the laws of mechanics and thermodynamics, led to the eventual demise of vitalism as a scientific theory (Wilson, 1996). In short, the vitalistic explanation of life was quasi-mechanical from its inception, unlike Aristotle's four-dimensional account [...] strong vitalism: that property or entity in virtue of which living things are alive is:(i) irreducibly distinct from its physical properties and parts,(ii) to some extent determines the course of physical events in living things, and(iii) breaks or overrides physical laws in the course of (ii) [...] vitalism is no longer scientifically tenable: advances in the field of biology have decisively refuted even the weaker vitalistic claim that 'living things somehow fail to depend on their physical parts for their being alive'";

(click here,

http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/chapter1finala.html)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20050428192636/http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/chapter1finala.html)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/linux/vjtorley/chapter1finala.html)

Trefil, J. (? ?) states:

[in "The Nature of Science: An A-Z Guide to the Laws and Principles Governing Our Universe"(2003)]

"one of the greatest discoveries of 19th-century biology, given ample confirmation in the 20th, was that life is based on chemistry. There is no vital force, no intrinsic difference between materials in living systems and those in nonliving systems [p.273...] a legacy of the belief that living things are somehow special (see vital force) [p.413...] vital force. [That] there is a special force that forms molecules in living systems [...] in 1828, Friedrich Wöhler made an important breakthrough when he made urea in his laboratory from ordinary 'off the shelf' chemicals. This proved conclusively that no vital force was necessary to create organic molecules [...though] ideas like that of a vital force or vitalism don't die easily [...] scarcely disguised vitalism informs much of the 'new age' thinking today [p.415]";

(ISBN 0618319387)

Troost, C.J. (? ?) states:

[in "Apes or Angels?: Darwin, Dover, Human Nature, and Race"(2007)]

"long ago, during the Enlightenment, Lavoisier and deLaplace saw the irrelevance of supernatural explanations in the quest to understand nature. Darwin later followed the same approach. The metaphysic of naturalism was a hard sell despite the success of science until the twentieth century [...] science, once freed from the tangles of supernaturalism, took off explosively and made reconciliation a one-sided affair. Vitalism, finalism, and intelligent design were left for believers to ponder while Darwin and others went on explaining how nature works [p.102]";

(ISBN 1425955215)

Turner, D. (? ?) states:

[in "Making Prehistory: Historical Science and the Scientific Realism Debate"(2007)]

"Laudan['s 1981...] now famous list of failed scientific theories: the crystalline spheres of ancient and medieval astronomy; the humoral theory of medicine; [p.096] the effluvial theory of static electricity; 'catastrophist' geology [...] the phlogiston theory of chemistry; the caloric theory of heat; the vibrational theory of heat; the vital force theories of physiology; the electromagnetic ether; the optical ether; the theory of circular inertia; theories of spontaneous generation [p.097]";

(ISBN 052187520X)

[defunct] (for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs4vmZgs1zU)

Tymieniecka, A.T. (? ?) {ed.} states:

[in "Phenomenology of Life [...]"(1998)]

"[per Spassov, S. (? ?)] vitalism today is indeed nothing but history, and that is that [...] Bergson's biophilosophical theory looks completely discredited today and is rejected as futile philosophical speculation of no value for a knowledge of life [p.197]";

(ISBN 0792344456)

Ulvestad, E. (? ?) states:

[in "Defending Life: The Nature of Host-Parasite Relations"(2007)]

"life is something acquired or lost according to species-specific rules. For a period of more than 200 years these rules were thought to be of a transcendental nature and as such inaccessible to scientific investigation. The tradition known as vitalism held that living entities were animated by an immaterial life principle [p.119] that demarcated them from non-life. The mechanism of spontaneous generation accounted for the transmutation of inanimate matter into living forms, and organismal death was explained by spiritual loss. Even through vitalism and the belief in spontaneous generation of animals received several injurious marks during the nineteenth century, the beliefs were not considered falsified until the twentieth century when it was finally established that living entities are being[s] made up of the same basic ingredients as non-living things [p.120...] with the demise of vitalism and the emergence of Darwinism, the Aristotelian concept of teleology was replaced by naturalistic explanations of life's directedness [p.173]";

(ISBN 1402056753)

van Hooft, S. (? ?) states:

[in "Life, Death and Subjectivity"(2004)]

"vitalism was an example of such a view when it suggested that the essential difference between living and non-living things could be explained by alluding to a 'principle of life' or 'vital force' [p.021...] 'vitalism.' This was a view that a living system or an organism differs from a non-living or inert entity in that it is infused by a 'vital fluid' or enlivened by a 'life force' [p.085...] a more subtle variation of vitalism is the view that living things harbor purposes. This is sometimes called the 'teleological' view of life. It is the view that events can be caused by the outcomes that they produce [...a view] modern science rejects [p085...] to think of living creatures or species as guided by purposes or by teleological forces is to revert to a kind of vitalism that modern developments in science have discredited [...vitalism as] some special or miraculous fluid, force, spiritual entity, or purpose [p.086...] traditional debates had been between 'mechanists' and 'vitalists.' Of these, vitalism has been the easiest for science to reject. This is because, as I have mentioned, it is a case of attempting to explain the mysterious by citing something that is even more mysterious. Alluding to 'vital fluids' or to supernatural entities such as souls was never going to be good scientific methodology [p.088...] archaic views such as vitalism [p.090...the modern view is that] biological processes are material processes [p.093]";

(ISBN 9042019123)

Venable, F.P. (PhD ?) states:

[in "A Short History of Chemistry"(1894)]

"organic substances as the products of life force [...] it became clear, from the work of Chevreul, that many of the fats and acids and other substances, including in both [vegetable and animal] kingdoms, were identical; but the line was still very sharply drawn between mineral substances and the products of plant and animal life [...] they were [believed to be] produced by some mysterious force, life, whose operations could not be imitated. The ordinary laws governing chemical affinity could not be expected to apply in this field; and hence chemical theories, as the atomic theory, could not explain the phenomena of life [p.116...] the synthesis of urea [...illustrated as unwarranted the] necessity for the action of the mysterious life force [...] Wohler's brilliant synthesis of urea [...] finally broke down this barrier [...] the dying away of the old belief was slow [p.118]";

(ISBN none, too old; D.C. Health and Co.)

Voet, D. (? ?), Voet, J.G. (? ?) state:

[in "Biochemistry"(1995)]

"Pasteur assumed that living systems were endowed with a 'vital force' that permitted them to evade the laws of nature governing inanimate matter [p.333...] Buchner demonstrated that cell-free yeast extracts [can carry out fermentation...] this discovery refuted the then widely held belief that fermentation, and every other biological process, was mediated by some 'vital force' inherent in living matter [p.444...] thermodynamics of life. One of the last refuges of vitalism, the doctrine that biological processes are not bound by the physical laws that govern inanimate objects, was the belief that living things can somehow evade the laws of thermodynamics [...] a view partially refuted by elaborate calorimetric measurements on living animals that are entirely consistent with the energy conservation predictions of the first law of thermodynamics [p.437]";

(ISBN 047158651X)

(for a short amazon.com review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/R18R4U546G7Y4F/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

Ward, H.M. (? ?) states:

[in "Disease in Plants"(1901)]

"the bugbear vitalism, which was simply preventing enquiry [p.005]";

(ISBN none, too old; publ. Macmillan)

Watson, J.B. (? ?) states:

[in "Behaviorism --The Modern Note in Psychology"(1929)]

"it [...] is a truism in science that we should not bring into our explanation any vitalistic factor. We need nothing to explain behavior but the ordinary laws of physics and chemistry. There are many things we cannot explain in behavior just as there are many things we cannot explain in physics and chemistry, but where objectively verifiable experimentation ends, hypothesis, and later theory, begin. But even theories and hypotheses must be couched in terms of what is already known about physical and chemical processes. He then who would introduce consciousness, either as an epiphenomenon or as an active force interjecting itself into the chemical and physical happenings of the body, does so because of spiritualistic and vitalistic leanings";

(click here,

http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/Battle/watson.htm)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20010222062053/http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/Battle/watson.htm)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Watson/Battle/watson.htm)

Webster, S. (? ?) states:

[in "Thinking About Biology"(2003)]

"vitalism is now a dead philosophy [...] for the vitalist, living things are possessed (literally) by a 'life force,' utterly distinct from the physiochemical forces so far discovered [...this is] impossible to investigate: how do you investigate a life force? [p.057]";

(ISBN 0521599547)

(for an amazon.com short review of this, click here,

http://www.amazon.com/review/RY9W0ZIZQCWHD/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm)

[defunct](for a youtube.com slideshow of this, click here {entire},

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoJbhMLsHnA)

[defunct](for a sumo.tv slideshow of this, click here {entire},

http://www.sumo.tv/watch.php?video=3579201)

Weisman, R. (? ?) states {admittedly}:

[in "Own Your Health: Choosing the Best from Alternative and Conventional Medicine"(2003)]

"a life force, spirit, or soul [p.046...] something more, something invisible – which might be called the soul or spirit […] Western scientists do not acknowledge these energies [p.045]";

(ISBN 0757300111)

Weiss, T.F. (? ?) states:

[in "Cellular Biophysics"(1996)]

"the intellectual ferment of nineteenth-century science led to the end of vitalism. It became clear that there was no need to find some special life force unique to living organisms and absent from the inanimate world. The operations of living organisms could be understood, in principle, by the same laws of physics and chemistry that apply to the inanimate world [p.xxxviii]";

(ISBN 0262231832)

Wettersten, J. (? ?) states:

[in "How Do Institutions Steer Events"(2006)]

"in biology theories that appeal to a 'life-force,' as Helmholtz's teacher Johannes Muller did, are no longer admissible. This is a metaphysical standard, but it can be evaluated by asking whether it helps or hinders problem-solving. In fact it came into practice because theories which did appeal to a life-force added nothing to the explanatory power of biological theories. It seems to prevent them from being a science [...] the prohibition against theories appealing to life-forces [p.221]";

(ISBN 0754653579)

Wheeler, T.J. (PhD{chemistry} ?) states:

[in “A Scientific Look At Alternative Medicine”(2006-02-21)]

“[quoting Raso's 'Alternative Healthcare'] 'naturopathy [...] is characterized by a miscellany of vitalistic approaches' [p.007...quoting the NCAHF's 'Naturopathy'] 'vitalism is: a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces [...] which denotes a paranormal life force. Vitalists are generally not only nonscientific, but antiscientific because they abhor the reductionism (v. holism), materialism (v. etherealism), and mechanism (v. mystical) causal process of science. Its belief in vitalism (vis medicatrix naturae)'”;

(click here,

http://biochemistry.louisville.edu/education/holistic06.pdf)

(archived here,

http://web.archive.org/web/20060901114355/http://biochemistry.louisville.edu/education/holistic06.pdf)

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

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://biochemistry.louisville.edu/education/holistic06.pdf)

Whitfield, J. (? ?) states:

[in "In The Beat of a Heart"(2006)]

"Max Rubner [...] in 1889, he conducted probably his greatest experiment [...] this result showed that animals obeyed the first law of thermodynamics [...] and struck a powerful blow against vitalism [p.036]";

(ISBN 0309096812)

Whorton, J.C. (PhD ?) states:

[in "Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America"(2004)]

"cultism seemed applicable as well because the one-theory, one-cure [alternative medicine] systems posited mystical, scientifically unexplainable powers in the human body [...i.e.] the osteopathic rule of the artery [...wherein its founder Still believed] providence has place all needed remedies within the human bloodstream [...and] chiropractic's innate intelligence [...per VFS as a] parcel of divinity [...and] Christian science [...being] supernaturalism rampant [...having divorced] itself altogether from the scientific worldview by denying that such a thing as a corporeal body even existed [...none of the three of a] biochemical interpretation of the human frame [...per] mainstream medicine's scientific foundation regarding life [...based upon] mechanisms derived from the material sciences of chemistry and physics [...as opposed to] vitalism or forces that transcended the physico-chemical domain [...] the model of irregular vitalism was naturopathy, a system that although it accepted the material body was real, still explained health, disease and healing in spiritual [vitalistic] terms irreconcilable with reductionist science [...per naturopathy's founder] Lust [who] proclaimed [...] 'every man has a certain, mysterious power within him' [...a] 'psychic force (that) uses the mechanical forces [...] this power [...] mysterious [...] marvelous' [...per ] the language of religion [...] the 'life force' as a cosmic power [p.224...belief in] a spiritual-material body that was 'an exact duplicate of the physical body...whose material atoms and molecules are more refined and vibrate at infinitely greater velocities than those of the physical-material body' [...called a supposed] 'demonstrated fact of natural science' [p.225]";

(ISBN 0195171624)

Williams, E.A. (? ?) states:

[in "The Physical and the Moral: Anthropology, Physiology, and Philosophical Medicine in France, 1750-1850"(2002)]

"vitalism continued to have diverse and powerful influence long after medical progressives had consigned it to the historical dustbin. Nonetheless, it is true that from the 1830s forward the dominant discourse of medicine came to exclude vitalist concepts and terminology that earlier had been commonplaces [...per vitalism as] metaphysical murk [...the supposed] vitalist science of man [p.179...] Gratiolet argued, the higher faculties depended not on static anatomical features at all but on what he called the 'harmony and dynamic architecture' of the central-nervous system, in which were expressed or made manifest the 'vital force whose laws are hidden.' This recourse to vitalism within the society was swiftly rebuked. Two speakers who followed Gratiolet condemned him for injecting 'metaphysics' into what had been a strictly scientific debate and for resorting to explanations based on the 'occult forces' of prepositive medicine [p.264]";

(ISBN 0521524628)

Wilson, D.L. (? ?) states:

[in “Introduction to Biology”(2000)]

“living things obey the laws of physics and chemistry. It was once thought that life required special forces that went beyond those found in inanimate objects like rocks. Vitalism, the belief that special forces are involved in living organisms, has not been found to be necessary. We have been able to describe and understand the activities of living organisms solely on the basis of the principles of physics and chemistry. Biology is based on, and the science of biology builds from, physical principles [p.006...] which of the following is not one of the accepted, major generalizations in biology? [...] d. [that] living things exhibit vitalism, having special properties not governed by the laws of physics and chemistry [p.095];

(ISBN 0632044160)

Winter, A. (? ?) states:

[in "Organic Chemistry I for Dummies"(2005)]

"as organic molecules were once falsely thought to have a 'vital life force' that other molecules didn't have [...] despite the destruction of this theory of vitalism [p.014...] the foundation for modern organic chemistry [...arose] by unseating the established theory of vitalism, the theory that organic molecules contained a vital life force not present in inorganic compounds [p.342]";

(ISBN 0764569023)

.
.
Wolpert, L. (? ?) states:
.

[in "The Unnatural Nature of Science"(1994)]

"vitalism is an idea which assigns to human life, particularly consciousness, a special quality which must forever remain outside conventional science [...per] an anti-reductionist stance [...] that life cannot be reduced to mere physics and chemistry and that a more holistic approach is required [...] any philosophy that is at its core holistic must tend to be anti-science, because it precludes studying parts of a system separately -- of isolating some parts and examining their behavior without reference to everything else. If every process were dependent on its part in the whole then science could not have succeeded [p.138]";

(ISBN 0674929810)

Yockey, H.P. (? ?) states:

[in "Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life"(2005)]

"vitalism is the belief that there is a metaphysical, supernatural, nonmaterial, idealist elan vital, a life force that distinguishes living from nonliving matter [...per] Hegel [...] Schelling [...and] Oken [...] who believed all creation was a manifestation of a world spirit. They believed all matter possessed this spirit and organized bodies had it to an intense degree [...] a vital force or elan vital [...nowadays considered] supernatural [p.149...] the nineteenth-century doctrines of vitalism and dualism whose proponents believed that there are processes unique to living organisms that are contrary to the laws of physics and chemistry (Mayr, 1982; Pauly, 1987) [p.183...] Wöhler's work as a stake in the heart of vitalism [...] vitalism no longer plays a role in biology (Mayr, 1982) [p.150...] vitalism: the belief that all matter possesses a world spirit and organized bodies, especially living organisms have it to an intense degree [p.217]";

(ISBN 0521802938)

Appendix C.06.e. - No VFS in Sci. - Acad.s & Authors (S-Z)

The Scientific Rejection of Vitalism (continued).