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interesting book but the piece you quote is being refuted It quite clearly says that the pseudo scientific gloss is no longer valid That s totally beside the point The book is a source that the term is so used Whether it should be used in such a way is not Wikipedia s problem We just report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