Continental Drift vs Vital essence theory
descriptions edited from Wikipedea originals to better fit this web site
Continental Drift: Frank Bursley Taylor had proposed the concept in a Geological Society of America meeting in 1908 after working on a jigsaw puzzle in between sessions, and published his work in the GSA Bulletin in June 1910, once the puzzle was finished. It was by all accounts a very large puzzle. Abraham Ortelius, Francis Bacon, Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Benjamin Franklin, and others had noted earlier that the shapes of continents on either side of the Atlantic Ocean (most notably, Africa and South America) seem to fit together. Some sources suggest that they may have assisted with the puzzle at the GSA meeting of '08, or at least seen the puzzle in stores. The similarity of southern continent fossil faunae and some geological formations had led a small number of Southern hemisphere geologists to conjecture as early as 1900 that all the continents had once been joined into a supercontinent now known as Pangaea. How they came to the conclusion that the name was Pangaea is suspicious however, as there was no forwarding address. *This theory was superceded by Plate Techtonics which provided a valid forwarding address.
Vital essence theory (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
In a nut shell vitalism says you need a soul to be alive. Vitalism is often criticized for not being testable, and non-scientific. And it is in fact hard to prove, or disprove in the real world. In the Simpsons however, we find our answer. After selling his soul to Milhouse, Bart is still alive. Automatic doors however no longer will work for him, as well as other problems. So, clearly a soul is not required to live. Those intelligent design people may be right, with enough smarts chemistry can do anything.
3 comments:
Actually I don't feel that either of these deserve to make it past the first round, but the random number generator made the brackets, and not me. But given that one of them must advance to the next round I am going with vitalism, mostly just because Continental Drift can faintly be heard from inside Plate techtnoics saying "I'm not dead yet" in a slightly british accent, and it just doesn't seem right to give it another go when it hasn't gotten off the ride yet.
@ Vitalism -- I have seen the brackets, and the only chance you have to get past the second round alive... or rather still dead, but with the hope of becoming a real little boy, or theory as it were... is to sell your soul. But if you are dead, you are no longer in possession of your soul, or you would still be alive. See, you're screwed.
I contend that vitalism doesn't represent a theory at all, and hardly even a hypothesis. This actually would remove it from competition, as it is untestable.
Principles of religion would be better used to test the concept of souls, though which religion's dogma should be used for testing might present problems with getting results.
Hinduism or Taoism would suggest that all creatures, and even some inanimate objects have souls, or some living essence. Many Christian sects believe that only humans have souls, and those souls are dirty from birth. Still other groups (that shall remain unnamed, to protect the innocent) believe that souls exist independent of biological life or tangible existence (mortality), and have entirely different natures, depending on their "sphere" of creation (whether human, animal, planet, etc.).
Which of these definitions to use presents the main problem with even testing the "theory" of vitalism. As such, I submit that vitalism forfeit, giving a default win to continental drift.
I also submit that any superceded theory may still be contained within the original and be allowed to contend. The fact that it has been superceded doesn't necessarily mean that it has been entirely changed, but that an explanation has been found to better explain real conditions.
Continental drift still happens, but plate techtonics better explain how. The name of the old theory still gets used, but the plate techtonic mechanism is the real star now. So leave old has-been C.D. alone to languish in what minor celebrity it can still garner from residual name recognition.
tommyp, I contend that vitalism does in fact represent a theory, just not a very scientific one.
To put a nail in the coffin of this debate I turn to the all knowing wikipedia where Vital essence theory is listed under superseded chemistry theories. It can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsolete_scientific_theories#Superseded_chemistry_theories
Post a Comment