Conservation of Energy from human physiology

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical context of Hermann von Helmholtz's work on the conservation of energy, particularly in relation to muscle metabolism and the philosophical paradigm of vitalism. Participants explore the implications of rejecting vital forces in understanding living systems and how this relates to the broader concept of energy conservation.

Discussion Character

  • Historical
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants discuss the notion of 'vital forces' as a life energy that distinguishes living beings from inanimate objects, suggesting that Helmholtz's rejection of this idea implies a unified set of laws governing both living and non-living entities.
  • Others propose that 'vital forces' were placeholders for unexplained biological phenomena, highlighting the challenges of quantitative measurements in biology during Helmholtz's time.
  • Several participants connect the discussion to the concept of vitalism, noting that the Wöhler synthesis served as an early refutation of vitalist ideas by demonstrating that organic compounds could be synthesized from inorganic materials.
  • Some contributions include critiques of vitalism, referencing historical figures who have humorously pointed out the fallacies in vitalist reasoning.
  • There are reflections on the fairness of judging past scientists, with participants acknowledging that they operated under the best knowledge available at the time.
  • Some participants express that vitalism may still have relevance in contemporary discussions, albeit in different forms.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the historical significance of vitalism and its implications for modern science. There is no consensus on the validity of vitalism or the implications of Helmholtz's work, indicating ongoing debate and differing perspectives.

Contextual Notes

The discussion touches on the limitations of historical scientific paradigms and the challenges faced by scientists in making quantitative measurements in biology, which remain relevant issues today.

tade
Messages
720
Reaction score
26
From the wiki page on Hermann von Helmholtz:

"an 1847 physics treatise on the conservation of energy was written in the context of his medical studies and philosophical background. He discovered the principle of conservation of energy while studying muscle metabolism. He tried to demonstrate that no energy is lost in muscle movement, motivated by the implication that there were no vital forces necessary to move a muscle. This was a rejection of the speculative tradition of Naturphilosophie which was at that time a dominant philosophical paradigm in German physiology."

What were these 'vital forces' and what was the paradigm at that time? How would this lead to CoE?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vital force would be "life force".
A living thing was thought to possesses something extra, a spark of life, that distinguished it from inorganic materials. So the life energy would be something different than the inanimate object energy.

I would have to speculate that Helmholtz rejected that idea, and made the assumption that living and non-living are governed by the same laws.
 
tade said:
From the wiki page on Hermann von Helmholtz:

"an 1847 physics treatise on the conservation of energy was written in the context of his medical studies and philosophical background. He discovered the principle of conservation of energy while studying muscle metabolism. He tried to demonstrate that no energy is lost in muscle movement, motivated by the implication that there were no vital forces necessary to move a muscle. This was a rejection of the speculative tradition of Naturphilosophie which was at that time a dominant philosophical paradigm in German physiology."

What were these 'vital forces' and what was the paradigm at that time? How would this lead to CoE?

The term 'vital forces' was probably just a fill-in for use when they ran out of serious explanations for some of the life processes. Biology was a devil for doing quantitative measurements in those days .(Still is, I think, or people would have sorted out slimming diets and fitness by now).
Hats off to him if he could do serious Input / Output measurements and get conclusive results. It was much easier to work with steam engines to prove the point about CoE.
 
sophiecentaur said:
The term 'vital forces' was probably just a fill-in for use when they ran out of serious explanations for some of the life processes. Biology was a devil for doing quantitative measurements in those days .(Still is, I think, or people would have sorted out slimming diets and fitness by now).
Hats off to him if he could do serious Input / Output measurements and get conclusive results. It was much easier to work with steam engines to prove the point about CoE.

Reminds me of a bloke called Santorio Santorio (yes, twice)
 
I think it's connected to the concept "vitalism", which was a paradigm before the development of organic chemistry. The discovery of the Wöhler synthesis was an early refutation of vitalism;

Wikipedia said:
The synthesis of urea (and other organic substances) from inorganic compounds was counterevidence for the vitalist hypothesis that only organisms could make such compounds.
 
DennisN said:
I think it's connected to the concept "vitalism", which was a paradigm before the development of organic chemistry. The discovery of the Wöhler synthesis was an early refutation of vitalism;

It's interesting to study scientific history and changing paradigms.
 
Fun stuff, quote;

Wikipedia said:
Vitalism has sometimes been criticized as begging the question by inventing a name. Molière had famously parodied this fallacy in Le Malade imaginaire, where a quack "answers" the question of "Why does opium cause sleep?" with "Because of its soporific power."[32] Thomas Henry Huxley compared vitalism to stating that water is the way it is because of its "aquosity".[33] His grandson Julian Huxley in 1926 compared "vital force" or élan vital to explaining a railroad locomotive's operation by its élan locomotif ("locomotive force").

:smile:
 
Even though I posted some fun quotes, I'd like to add that it would of course not be fair to ridicule every vitalist from that time. o:) Hindsight is easy for us living now. Many scientists probably did the best they could.
 
  • #10
DennisN said:
Even though I posted some fun quotes, I'd like to add that it would of course not be fair to ridicule every vitalist from that time. o:) Hindsight is easy for us living now. Many scientists probably did the best they could.

I am sure it is alive and flourishing quite well in some corners of society.
 
  • #11
DennisN said:
Even though I posted some fun quotes, I'd like to add that it would of course not be fair to ridicule every vitalist from that time. o:) Hindsight is easy for us living now. Many scientists probably did the best they could.

This Moliere was a comedian, so it seems like the scientists of those days weren't doing so well. Perhaps it was easier to ridicule science back then. Hmm..

I agree, hindsight is easier, if only more people would learn from history.
 
  • #12
256bits said:
I am sure it is alive and flourishing quite well in some corners of society.

Perhaps. But that's different from scientists in the past.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 128 ·
5
Replies
128
Views
44K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
6K