Continental Drift vs Vital essence theory, descriptions edited from Wikipedea originals to 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 *This theory was superceded by Plate Techtonics which provided a valid forwarding address.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.
8 comments:
From the previous post:
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.
Since we're starting this whole thing over anyways, I'm going to change my vote. Especially since my previous vote was not based on a cage match, as these really should be...
I see it this way, in the cage:
Continental Drift ponderously rumbles into the ring, at a rate of a few mm/year. Vitalism attacks at the first sign of an opponent, using attacks illegal and lethal.
Unfortunately, CD is unable to detect the other-planar attacks of Vitalism, and continues a determined advance. Finally, the umpire has to separate them, awarding the technical KO to CD for playing by the rules.
CD FTW
And it turns out I didn't change my vote, though my reasoning was better...
...or if not better, different. And cooler. Which means better...
tommyp, several problems with your argument. First and most importantly THIS IS A CAGE MATCH. There are no rules to follow or break. Second, "CD is unable to detect the other-planar attacks of Vitalism," what does that have to do with anything??? Seriously, you never see the one that gets you, or so I have been told, I mean, I have never been gotten in that way, so I have no proof and will admit that that is just hearsay. But in my defence googling that term does return almost 4000 hits.
So, does vitalism win, or is it just your reasoning that is flawed. As I mentioned in my comment, I don't really care, I don't see either getting through the next round, and regret the fact that one of them will get through the first round.
I was originally going to vote for Vitalism because of reasons that TommyP has quite eloquently laid out. On further reflection, however, it's become apparent to me that our votes are meaningless. Continental Drift must win. It is an incontrovertible fact that the Earth, the planet we stand on, does in fact exist. It has further been shown with satellites and what-not that the Earth's crust is broken up into plates, and it is conceivable that those plates might move. So when the call for combatants came out in the Superceded Theory Death Match, Continental Drift did in fact lumber to the arena. Billions died when Asia hoisted itself up and sauntered over to the arena, but that's immaterial to the outcome of the fight. Asia waits...and waits...and finally its attention starts drifting, along with that of the audience. Millions of years go by, and the plucky continent moves a few inches towards Vitalism's corner. But nothing else happened. Vitalism never showed. What happened?
Turns out, Continental Drift won by default because Vitalism had no one to send. Continents exist. "Humors" do not. Continental Drift wins in a landslide. QED.
nickg,
Continental Drift must win nothing. This is not a scientific endeavor. I doubt anyone will argue that vitalism is more scientifically sound. That is why vitalism has been abandoned to antiquity while continental drift still has some place in Plate Techtonic theory, which addresses why the plates move (which is not as has been suggested so the Americas could get away from parts of the world where bathing is less frequent).
The purpose of this competition is not to determine which theory sucked less, but to give one of the participants a second chance of immortality by appearing in this obscure corner of the web as a winner; even though they were crushed in real life.
From my introduction to this competition:
I am planning to start a new competition involving scientific theories that "didn't make the cut." These theories are much like the Chicago Cubs of the science community. There were well received for a while (1907-1908) but now are just waiting to be swallowed by the maw of eternity having out lived their usefulness. The Cubs however get a new chance every year to try to be reinstated to the ranks of the "non-irrelevant," and the theories have been left to collect dust; until now.
So, please keep this in mind, much more so than last time this is a popularity or perhaps pity contest, and less focused on scientific acumen.
I do not mean to criticize you personally, and I don't want it to appear as if I am stumping for Vitalism (as I said in my first post here "Actually I don't feel that either of these deserve to make it past the first round") if you feel that a scientific basis is important in getting a second chance that is fine, but I just feel it best to respond to my general concerns here and now before the contest deviates from it's intended goal.
My only real beef with your post is referencing "Humors." Humors and Vitalism are different. You will be given your chance to dismiss Humors in a few weeks.
BadAnswer:"The purpose of this competition is not to determine which theory sucked less..."
I believe you have stated yourself that the purpose of this round (though perhaps not the competition) is to decided which sucks less.
In any case, history will show that vitalism was never observable. It may have been an interesting explanation for a short while, but could never really gain traction. Things that aren't observable have that weakness.
You also have to realize your audience - you have a bunch of irritated scientists sitting around trying to find ways to joke about stuff that bores most people to tears. What seems to make us cry is a poor, lame, or insufficiently humorous argument.
Your basic argument here is that neither of these will make it past the next round, so it doesn't matter anyways. I submit to the other handful - nay, couple - of contributors to the discussion that our arguments mean more, simply because they're funnier.
Also, you have to admit that something never shown to exist (causing its demise) will have a hard time in a cage death match over something that does exist, even if it's been shown to exist in a different form.
Perhaps if you had set up superceded theories and metaphysical concepts separately...
tommyp
I suppose the context was weak in my last reply. The purpose is not to see which theory sucked less in relation to the scientific method.
For example; there are some who would lead you to believe that if you have so called 'midichlorians' in your body you can use the so called 'force' and have it be with you. There is presently no current scientific basis for this theory, but it is still quite cool. This 'Force' theory would easily win this tournament, it is that cool. But still, no scientific basis.
I guess I have been too far away while beating around the bush. Vote for the one you wish was real (in the case of false theories) or comprehensive (in the case of superseded theories).
Post a Comment