Seems to me like a philosophically/deep sounding debate but in the end is a rather simple question of agreeing (even +- randomly!) on a definition and all sticking to it. Or in the worst case even just mostly sticking to it and making pragmatically sure we elaborate a bit if, on some potentially anyway difficult to avoid edge cases, we otherwise risk confusion. Defining life on the basis of a +- complicated philosophical concept defeats the purpose of finding a most practical use of the word.
Whichever way we define the term “life”, if something isn’t included which in future discussions turns out would more conveniently have been included, we’ll easily find an additional term for it—or post-hoc adjust the definition. And similarly the other way round.
On the example of viruses, we may have different intuitions or views as to whether we want to call it life, but I doubt virologists, other than for in a random coffee break maybe, are oft held up in their work because of a lack of agreement on it. And neither are others.
Your conclusion on
As we stand on the brink of potentially discovering life beyond Earth, we need definitions that can evolve with our understanding. The Prober’s Razor offers precisely this: a pragmatic principle that lets discovery lead definition, rather than lettinkg definition constrain discovery.
is eloquent but I think the above applies: Whatever definition we attribute to the word “life”, we’ll find a way to deal with the thingy we discover in outer space—or if we don’t, it will be because of more profound issues than the question of defining “life”.
Insightful response. Thank you. My attempt here is provide a definition from a future accomodating perspective. I recognize that it may seem “open ended,” and I agree with you In that respect. I was initially hesitant till I realized it did provide a solution to the stalemate between scientists that debate viruses as life or not. It also accomodated for non nucleotidic life forms that we find our selves in the presipis of, insilico for example. When I also realized it wasnt as open as to not reduce type I errors like fire and crystals, I thought it was worth publishing if nothing else but to inspire future evolution of the concept.
Seems to me like a philosophically/deep sounding debate but in the end is a rather simple question of agreeing (even +- randomly!) on a definition and all sticking to it. Or in the worst case even just mostly sticking to it and making pragmatically sure we elaborate a bit if, on some potentially anyway difficult to avoid edge cases, we otherwise risk confusion. Defining life on the basis of a +- complicated philosophical concept defeats the purpose of finding a most practical use of the word.
Whichever way we define the term “life”, if something isn’t included which in future discussions turns out would more conveniently have been included, we’ll easily find an additional term for it—or post-hoc adjust the definition. And similarly the other way round.
On the example of viruses, we may have different intuitions or views as to whether we want to call it life, but I doubt virologists, other than for in a random coffee break maybe, are oft held up in their work because of a lack of agreement on it. And neither are others.
Your conclusion on
is eloquent but I think the above applies: Whatever definition we attribute to the word “life”, we’ll find a way to deal with the thingy we discover in outer space—or if we don’t, it will be because of more profound issues than the question of defining “life”.
Insightful response. Thank you. My attempt here is provide a definition from a future accomodating perspective. I recognize that it may seem “open ended,” and I agree with you In that respect. I was initially hesitant till I realized it did provide a solution to the stalemate between scientists that debate viruses as life or not. It also accomodated for non nucleotidic life forms that we find our selves in the presipis of, insilico for example. When I also realized it wasnt as open as to not reduce type I errors like fire and crystals, I thought it was worth publishing if nothing else but to inspire future evolution of the concept.