51, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 

  in view of the tenor of the quoted text, I think you have quoted it misleadingly.    
 :No, you have. For example saying the book says of vitalism that  when it in fact says "just when its significance was being rehabilitated, it lost its value as a coherent notion". This source is more than ample to justify the restored PS category staying put.  ||  

 ::Yes, it says it has become so complex that it is no longer possible to say what "vitalism" means, or that it means a single thing, and certainly can not be simplistically opposed to mechanical theories, but that it remains "a useful heuristic". Very interesting book, but the piece you quote is being refuted. It quite clearly says that the "pseudo-scientific gloss" is no longer valid.   
 :::That's totally beside the point. The book is a source that the term is so used. Whether it should be used in such a way is not Wikipedia's problem. We just report that it is used that way.   17: