Vitalism (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

secondary literature · 2026

type:secondary literature

year:2026

citation:'Vitalism.' Encyclopaedia Britannica. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. Accessed 24 May 2026. https://www.britannica.com/science/vitalism

LINK

https://www.britannica.com/science/vitalism

SUMMARY

Encyclopaedia Britannica reference entry on vitalism, used in this case for the plain statement that vitalism was superseded as a scientific doctrine. The entry states: 'Vitalism has lost prestige as the chemical and physical nature of more and more vital phenomena have been shown.' This supports the case's account that the vital-force (Lebenskraft) framework on which Hufeland's macrobiotics rested lost standing as mechanistic and physico-chemical explanation advanced, and is not part of mainstream modern biology. Cited with its access date because the online entry carries no fixed publication year; the scholarly anchor for the controversy is the separate De Klerk (1979) source.

NOTES

The Encyclopaedia Britannica entry on vitalism is cited in this case for the explicit statement that vitalism lost standing as a scientific doctrine: ‘Vitalism has lost prestige as the chemical and physical nature of more and more vital phenomena have been shown.’ The vital force (Lebenskraft) that Hufeland posited as the determinant of lifespan is an instance of the vital principle this entry describes, and the entry supports the case’s claim that the framework was superseded as physico-chemical explanation advanced and has no place in mainstream modern biology. Because the online entry shows no fixed publication or revision year, it is cited with its access date (24 May 2026); the peer-reviewed historical reference for the mechanism-vitalism controversy is the separate De Klerk (1979) source.