The relationship between Vitalism, and the opposing Mechanism in the eighteenth through twentieth centuries was complex, and often fraught with the confounding effects of religion. Depending on the social and historical context, vitalism has either been radically opposed to accepted Christian teachings, or a very quaint, and somewhat religious pseudo-scientific explanation for biological phenomena. In some sense, it seems as though the very concept of vitalism is analogous to the belief in dualism held by certain religious thinkers. The idea that the mind (or soul) and the body (machine) are entirely separate entities that are operating independently of each other is not so different from asserting that while the cellular molecules and machinery
…show more content…
Traditionally, mechanists believe that there is no clear division between life and non-life, whereas vitalists propose that there is something extra, some special force, fluid, or particle that lies outside the realm of physics or chemistry that is unique to the living (Peterson 5). This particular debate has been occurring in varying forms since the time of Aristotle, who rejected the Democritus’ ideas of atoms, on the grounds that living beings were more than just the sum of the cold materials that formed them. The debate was open anew during the twentieth century, headed by Hans Driesch and Jacques Loeb. Both scientists drew from their respective research to support their philosophical biological views. Despite scientific advances, both theories are resilient enough to have stood the test of time. For vitalism, its persistence results from an inability to be disproven; vitalists maintain that the special force driving life cannot be detected or measured quantitatively. On the other side, mechanism demonstrates great flexibility and patience. Phenomena that could not be explained by mechanism were only temporary setbacks, as science would advance far enough that an explanation would always be forthcoming (Peterson …show more content…
With each advance in biochemistry, and eventually molecular biology, it was felt that vitalism must once and for all be dead. It can be seen time and time again, from Watson and Crick’s contribution to the understanding of the structure of DNA, to the first crystallization of a virus. Whenever it seems that a scientist has found the last piece of evidence necessary to end the debate, proponents of vitalism seem to come back with stronger support (Peterson 6). The resilience that the theory has probably lies in its inability to be disproven. Because the vital force lies outside the realm of physics or chemistry, it is not something that can be detected or measured
Traditionally, mechanists believe that there is no clear division between life and non-life, whereas vitalists propose that there is something extra, some special force, fluid, or particle that lies outside the realm of physics or chemistry that is unique to the living (Peterson 5). This particular debate has been occurring in varying forms since the time of Aristotle, who rejected the Democritus’ ideas of atoms, on the grounds that living beings were more than just the sum of the cold materials that formed them. The debate was open anew during the twentieth century, headed by Hans Driesch and Jacques Loeb. Both scientists drew from their respective research to support their philosophical biological views. Despite scientific advances, both theories are resilient enough to have stood the test of time. For vitalism, its persistence results from an inability to be disproven; vitalists maintain that the special force driving life cannot be detected or measured quantitatively. On the other side, mechanism demonstrates great flexibility and patience. Phenomena that could not be explained by mechanism were only temporary setbacks, as science would advance far enough that an explanation would always be forthcoming (Peterson …show more content…
With each advance in biochemistry, and eventually molecular biology, it was felt that vitalism must once and for all be dead. It can be seen time and time again, from Watson and Crick’s contribution to the understanding of the structure of DNA, to the first crystallization of a virus. Whenever it seems that a scientist has found the last piece of evidence necessary to end the debate, proponents of vitalism seem to come back with stronger support (Peterson 6). The resilience that the theory has probably lies in its inability to be disproven. Because the vital force lies outside the realm of physics or chemistry, it is not something that can be detected or measured