Category talk:Vitalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Choice of parent categories[edit]

Can we discuss how the parent categories of this category were chosen? I don't think any of them are fair or all-encompassing of the diverse topics at hand. Levine2112 18:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were chosen based on the various articles involved, and the categories of which they are already members. Since vitalism has various and widely different manifestations (historical, religious, metaphysical, psychological, biological, therapeutic, etc.), it ends up being relevant to many different categories. Placing this category in other categories makes sure that these matters are linked together. Obviously not all parent categories apply to all the "children" in this batch, simply because there are different parents to different off-spring, yet they have ended up in the same nest, so to speak. Because they link to this category from different directions, the links back to their parent categories is also in different directions. This is a grand central station, so the only common factor is a relation to vitalism. Just as passengers arrive from different trains, coming up different escalators, and entering different doors, the paths back must also provide the same options. -- Fyslee 18:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Just so I am clear, by being a part of the child category Vitalism does not necessarily mean that an article is associated with all of the parent categories listed. Right? For instance, Psychic Energy is not associated with "Early scientific cosmologies" just for being in this child category, right? Levine2112 18:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In principle that is correct. This station just provides guideposts that may be relevant for some, but not for others. Readers can make up their own minds, depending on where they are coming from and where they want to go. They may want to take the same train home again, but they may also discover they want to try another one. It gives them several choices. -- Fyslee 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Understood. Can we add other parents here as well? Levine2112 18:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. If the shoe fits.....;-) -- Fyslee 19:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just make sure it's relevant and not too broad. Too many categories diminishes the value. There needs to be a connection between source and link back. Science is too broad, as is Humans. -- Fyslee 19:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is sceince too broad, but pseudoscience is not? Levine2112 19:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it has very little to do with science, except in a historical context, but very much to do with modern day pseudoscience. -- Fyslee 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a matter of POV. Vitalism and Materialism (Mechanism) is still a live and very active debate within science.
It's only a topic for academic discussion, not a real part of scientific practice. If it becomes a part of practice, then the practice is pseudoscientific, because it then becomes unfalsifiable and a combination of science and metaphysics. Interesting for discussion, but in practice it dumbs down science and medicine. -- Fyslee 19:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is your POV. But if we are to entertain your line of thinking, then we should only include the Pseudoscience category if we are including the Science category. For if we are not including it as science, then it is not pseudoscience. Levine2112 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It automatically gets included in the science category by inclusion in the pseudoscience category, because that is a subcategory of science. -- Fyslee 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and "Obsolete Medical Theories" is part of Pseuodscience. Do we eliminate Pseuoscience therefore? Levine2112 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And "Early scientific cosmologies" is part of "Obsolete scientific theories". Do we eliminate that as well? Levine2112 19:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And "Obsolete biological theories" is part of "Pseudoscience". Do we eliminate that as well? Levine2112 19:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is where it can get confusing. We have different trees that intersect. Not all "obsolete medical theories" are "pseudoscience", and not all "pseudoscience" has relation to "obsolete medical theories". -- Fyslee 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and not all of vitalism is pseudoscience. Levine2112 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly a matter of POV, but for this discussion we can say that some of it is pseudoscience, and some may not be. Therefore pseudoscience applies some of the time. (Most scientists would say all of the time.) -- Fyslee 19:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So it just has to hold true some of the time for it to be relevant here? Seems rather ambiguous. No? Levine2112 20:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. One just has to be an inclusionist and allow other POV to apply. Other editors are also involved and acting in good faith implies that we must not try to suppress their POV. To get a category changed on a particular subject, then one should get involved in the editing of that article and convince the other editors to go along with it.
That would be a very easy job on articles tagged as pseudoscience, since most of the editors don't like it being "told like it is." Such a change would then be a violation of NPOV policy and a suppression of opposing POV, if it succeeds. But if most of the editors allow it, it would work for a short time, but later it would get changed back, because "truth will out" and one cannot change the true nature of quackery or pseudoscience by covering up the sign. It's still what it is. -- Fyslee 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that quackery and pseudoscience exists. But I think your comments above shows why too often things are misrepresented as such. People are so sure that things are as such and are unwilling to see any other truths. What is it that you call this behavior? True Believer Syndrome? Levine2112 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look it up and you'll see it applies to those who believe in pseudoscience in spite of scientific evidence against their POV, so don't misuse it. This is at the heart of pseudoscience - believers will never admit that their pet quackery is pseudoscientific, simply because they don't understand the nature of science well enough to realize they are being deceived, and because they aren't familiar enough with both sides of the coin. That's what scientific skeptics do - look at both sides and then let their opinions be guided by the best evidence currently available, and are willing to change their mind when better evidence comes along. Whatever the case may be, let's not allow deletism to destroy what has a lot of potential here by limiting it too much. Be an inclusionist. -- Fyslee 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems that those who throw that term around are often guilty of it just the same. I will go back and use my own term if that applies better... True Disbeliever Syndrome. Too often we have seen people so sure that something is quackery or pseudoscience and show us all of the evidence that supports their claim. However, when presented with scientific evidence that shows just the opposite, they typically ignore or discount it, becaus ethey are so sure that their opinion must be fact. Wikipedia is a place for a wide variety of POVs, so please make room and be inclusionist to those. Levine2112 20:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting into our personal disagreements, and as such is not relevant to this topic. I do allow plenty of POV that I disagree with all the time. I just object to my POV not being allowed. -- Fyslee 20:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. Levine2112 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for catergory Humans, Vitalism is a philosophy of life. How is Humans not relevant?Levine2112 19:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's relevant in an extremely broad and therefore irrelevant sense. Nearly every single topic on Wikipedia should then have that category tag, because it has to do with humans in one way or another. It just needs to be narrowed down. -- Fyslee 19:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Philosophy of life" would be a subcategory of "humans", and vitalism a subcategory of "philosophy of life". It would get included in "humans" by its inclusion in "philosophy of life," which is why it would be improper to include it in the "humans" category. -- Fyslee 19:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So this list is only of parents one level above (i.e. no grandparents or great grandparents)? Levine2112 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I understand the category system. Some do have multiple parents with different geneologies, which can be confusing. This means that several different trees can intersect right here, but we don't include the whole tree, just the part that's relevant right here. -- Fyslee 19:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I illustrate above we have many parents, grandparents and great grandparents. I think relevancy may have been a matter of our POV. Levine2112 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relevancy is established by the particular subject involved. The editors of each article have evaluated their subject in a certain way and categorized it that way. -- Fyslee 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But its selection here seems to be a matter of POV. Can we rectify? Levine2112 19:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


If I had to limit this down, here is how the categories would read:

Nature | Life | Knowledge | Biology | Humans | Philosophy of science | Philosophical terminology | Spirituality

Objections? Levine2112 20:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because that is only one tree, and eliminates (suppresses) other trees and POV. This is an intersection subject, and therefore many trees need to be represented by including the relevant part of the tree. -- Fyslee 20:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then don't eliminate my POV and I won't eliminate your. And we won't eliminate other people's POV. And before you know it we will have an absolutely huge category tree. I think what I suggest above eliminates all NPOV concerns as they are entirely factual and relevant categories. Levine2112 20:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only suggesting that the part of the tree that is relevant be included. Your proposed tree above is only one tree, and it goes all the way to the top. The top few points should not be included, since inclusion in a lower level is enough. Either one has to be able to see this from many different POV and allow them, or one shouldn't try and should just stick to the part one understands. -- Fyslee 20:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for the former and be inclusionist of all categories. "Life", for instance, is very broad, but it is at the heart of what Vitalism is about. So just because it is at the top of the tree, to not include it here would be criminal. Levine2112 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try it and see if it works. -- Fyslee 20:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've actually looked at the first five categories. It looks like this subject is in too large a category and sticks out like a sore thumb. It simply looks misplaced, a subject with too high thoughts of itself. I'll let others take care of it if they want to. I just hope it doesn't make this category look ridiculous to them and damage its reputation. -- Fyslee 20:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vitalism is a pretty huge subject. Levine2112 21:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. It's like an octopus with many legs that reach into all kinds of areas. -- Fyslee 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, wouldn't you agree that we should limit the displayed parent categories to those that are most pertinent? Levine2112 22:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And whose POV would determine that? The original categories were chosen, not by my POV, but because they applied to each of the very different subjects included. They were found on the article pages themselves. They represent portions of very different trees, growing in many different directions. Some are partially related, and others aren't. This means we aren't dealing with one continuous tree, but with parts of several trees. Even if we were dealing with one tree, we would only be allowed to use the level nearest our subject, and not all the levels above that one. I have no intention of deleting the ones you have added, so let's just leave it and see what happens. -- Fyslee 22:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parent category Category:Knowledge[edit]

How is [[:Category:Knowledge]] an appropriate parent category here? Is Vitalism a theory of knowledge, or does it have explanatory things to say about the nature of knowledge? Or is is that knowledge includes knowledge of vitalism? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalism is a theory of life. It is one side of the great debate - vitalism vs. materialism - dating back to ancient Greece (and perhaps beyond) and still raging today. Is there a vital spark that makes living matter unique from all other matter or can all of life's function be explained in terms of matter and mechanism? Is the mind and body separate? Is there a ghost in the machine? Vitalism represents one of those questions which no one has the answer for (yet). We say someone is full of vitality and thus full of life... but what does that mean? Essentially Vitalism posits a theory on the knowledge of life. And though it is an age old theory, this is a newly created category here at WP, so any input you have here is certainly welcomes and most appreciated. Thank you. Levine2112 22:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Every single article in Wikipedia is about knowledge of something. Those things under Category:Knowledge need to be more specifically about knowledge itself. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. As I said, this is a philosophy of life itself, so if anything it should be a decendent of the Life parent category (which I believe it is somewhere). Levine2112 22:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitalism is a Pseudoscience?[edit]

Based on arbitration and clarification on same, the Pseudoscience category, which has been applied to this category, requires a reliable source indicating that it is in fact pseudoscience to sustain its application. Can you point out some reliable source that will settle the matter? If not, we'll need to remove the Pseudoscience category tag from this category. Thank you.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 23:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:PSCI. Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PSCI is based on that Arbcom. Thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pursuant to the relevant discussions and decisions on the proper application of the term "Pseudoscience", I have just removed Category:Pseudoscience as a parent category, which had been added (once again) by an editor who did not heed those restrictions on use of the category. NOTE: even the Main article for this category is not part of Category:Pseudoscience. Please refrain from re-adding the category. Thank you. Cgingold (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vitalism is both an obsolete scientific theory & a pseudoscience. (These days it is a common underpinning behind theories of energy medicine and the like.) It fits the relevant Wikipedian guidline as an example of the 2nd sort.
So some sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]

References

  1. ^ Williams.W. (2000) The Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience. From Alien Abductions to Zone Therapy. Facts on File inc. Contributors: Drs D.Conway, L.Dalton, R.Dolby, R.Duval, H.Farrell, J.Frazier, J.McMillan, J.Melton, T.O'Niell, R.Shepherd, S.Utley, W.Williams. ISBN 0-8160-3351-X
  2. ^ Victor J. Stenger's site
  3. ^ Stenger.V.J., (1999) The Physics of 'Alternative Medicine': Bioenergetic Fields. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, Spring/Summer 1999 Volume 3 ~ Number 1
  4. ^ Biley, Francis, C. 2005, Unitary Health Care: Martha Rogers' Science of Unitary Human Beings, University of Wales College of Medicine, viewed 30 November 2006, [1]
  5. ^ The New England Sceptical Society
  6. ^ RationalWiki listing for Vitalism
  7. ^ Salzberg, S. (PhD Harvard 1989) in "Acupuncture Infiltrates the University of Maryland and NEJM" (2010-08-27) quoted at Naturocrit
  8. ^ Skeptic's Dictionary listing for energy (New Age)
  9. ^ Alternative medicine and the laws of physics
  10. ^ A Cultural History of Medical Vitalism in Enlightenment Montpellier - Elizabeth Ann Williams - Google Books
  11. ^ BECHTEL, WILLIAM and ROBERT C. RICHARDSON (1998). Vitalism. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London: Routledge. Vitalism
  12. ^ Vitalism. Bechtel W, Richardson RC (1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. E. Craig (Ed.), London: Routledge.
  13. ^ Rubik, Bioenergetic Medicines, American Medical Student Association Foundation, viewed 28 November 2006, [2]
  14. ^ The Physical Basis of Life, Pall Mall Gazette, 1869
  15. ^ Crick F (1967) Of Molecules and Men; Great Minds Series Prometheus Books 2004, reviewed here. Crick's remark is cited and discussed in: Hein H (2004) Molecular biology vs. organicism: The enduring dispute between mechanism and vitalism. Synthese 20:238–253, who describes Crick's remark as "raising spectral red herrings".
  16. ^ Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?
  17. ^ Dennett, Daniel C., 1996, Kinds of Minds: Toward an Understanding of Consciousness, BasicBooks.
  18. ^ Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD: Biographical sketch
  19. ^ "The Meanings of Innate" Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD, J Can Chiropr Assoc 2002; 46(1)
Is all that clear? --Andrewaskew (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category_talk:Vitalism&oldid=1088270511"