• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Can you provide an item of evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of a life force?

mslxl

Thinker
M
Joined
Mar 5, 2006
Messages
233
This is a question that I asked incidentally on another thread and that was not answered.

I am still interested in any answers.

Can you offer an item of scientific evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of a life force (a.k.a. chi, a.k.a. elan vital)?

Please do not post that it's not needed, it's the proponents of the life force who have to provide evidence, etc. I know that. Just answer the question with a specific result from biology. We are not in the philosophy section.

Thank you.
 
mslxl said:
This is a question that I asked incidentally on another thread and that was not answered.

I am still interested in any answers.

Can you offer an item of scientific evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of a life force (a.k.a. chi, a.k.a. elan vital)?

Please do not post that it's not needed, it's the proponents of the life force who have to provide evidence, etc. I know that. Just answer the question with a specific result from biology. We are not in the philosophy section.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
What is a "life force" (a.k.a. chi, a.k.a. elan vital)?
 
There is no evidence for it therefore it is not science. If you find evidence for it, it becomes potential science. Let us know when you do.
 
mslxl said:
Can you offer an item of scientific evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of a life force (a.k.a. chi, a.k.a. elan vital)?
Click to expand...

You would need to outline your hypothesis in significantly more detail.
 
fuelair said:
There is no evidence for it therefore it is not science. If you find evidence for it, it becomes potential science. Let us know when you do.
Click to expand...
Just because there is no evidence for something does not make it "not science". There isn't much evidence for string theory, but that doesn't make string theory "not science".
 
mslxl said:
This is a question that I asked incidentally on another thread and that was not answered.

I am still interested in any answers.

Can you offer an item of scientific evidence that contradicts the hypothesis of a life force (a.k.a. chi, a.k.a. elan vital)?

Please do not post that it's not needed, it's the proponents of the life force who have to provide evidence, etc. I know that. Just answer the question with a specific result from biology. We are not in the philosophy section.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
Yes, I can:
It haven't ever been detected.
 
Last edited:
DanishDynamite said:
Just because there is no evidence for something does not make it "not science". There isn't much evidence for string theory, but that doesn't make string theory "not science".
Click to expand...

Debateable. The problem with string theory is not so much the lack of evidence but the lack of ways it could be falsified. Of course this is only a problem if you follow something based on Karl Popper's philosophy of science.
 
What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This does not mean you cannot come up with a testable theory. String theory is testable. Asserting that there is a 'life force' is not testable because you do not define life force in any meaningful or testable way. It is IMPOSSIBLE for use to have evidence against something you don't even define.
 
geni said:
Debateable. The problem with string theory is not so much the lack of evidence but the lack of ways it could be falsified. Of course this is only a problem if you follow something based on Karl Popper's philosophy of science.
Click to expand...
I don't follow. My understanding is that there are lots of ways that string theory could be falsified. The ways to do so just require magnitudes of energy densities way above anything currently possible.

Is this wrongly understood?
 
mslxl said:
In response to the people who asked for a definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism

In response to the people who insist on doing philosophy, please go to the philosophy section.
Click to expand...
Thanks for providing a definition. Let me restate them here:
Vitalism, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is

1. a doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due to a vital principle distinct from physicochemical forces
2. a doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining
Click to expand...
Both are clearly bunk, as there is no evidence for either.
 
There is plenty of inductive evidence -- after thousands of years of similar theories, there hasn't been a single shred of scientifically valid evidence that suggests the theories might be true.

You can go on as long as you like with this, but the more people try to prove a life force and consistently fail the more powerful the evidence against one becomes.

BTW, I used to *almost* beleive in chi, because I just really wanted it to exist. I now know that anything chi could do for me my brain and technology can do ten times better.
 
Fifty-eight minutes.

Fifteen replies.

Zero attempt to answer.

Tick tock tick tock...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom