>>11245915>Vitalismaccording to wikipedia (i'm too lazy to research properly when i'm taking a literal shit) vitalist proponents proposed empirical tests, and these tests did not produce results that supported their hypothesis.
Of course anyone could come up with an idea and call it vitalism, but the original vitalists were unable to find proof for THEIR conception of vitalism.
yes yes, muh absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Pragmatically there is no empirical evidence for vitalism and atleast some against it
You could produce neovitalism if you wished, or neoneovitalism. And make it unfalsifiable.
That said, from experience you likely either want to push some shitty philosophy of 'lol the soul exists', 'dualism is so cool guys'. Or you think yourself super intelligent (falsely)
