On 12 fév, 01:21, j...@wilkins.id.au
(John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydneyhttp://evolvingthoughts.net
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
I begin by what I am the most interested in your response: I would be
grateful if you could send me the pdf of your article entitled
"Selection without replicators: the origin of genes, and the
replicator/interactor distinction in etiobiology.": I would like to
read it and send you my comments if you like it.
Your examples of material, physical (in one word 'real') things that
scientists cannot define scientifically but that they can study:
- Life: for me it is a metaphysical concept;
- Species: as Arkalen is saying, there are "different definitions of
'species' that apply to different situations and then there are
situations where scientists avoid the word entirely";
- Region: I supposed you mean that we cannot define an absolute
boudary for a 'region' in general but we must for a specific region;
- Niche: aproximatively the same situation as for 'species''
- Mountain: I supposed you mean that we cannot define an absolute
distinction between these different categories as 'rise in the
ground', 'hill', 'mountain' etc. However, when scientists are dealing
with such a specific 'rise in the ground' they will specify its
- Ecosystem: it is true that such a concept is vague but when
scientists are dealing with it they must specify their definition for
the given situation they are studying;
- Disease: I am physician and I can assert that physicians must define
a particular disease when they study it (e.g. consensus documents such
as the consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/
American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of
- Society: the same as for 'Ecosystem';
- Cognition: the same as for 'Ecosystem';
- Planet: a clear definition exists!
- Star: the same as for 'planet'!
- Galaxy: the same as for 'planet'!
- Cloud: the same as for 'Ecosystem';
- Climate: the same as for 'Ecosystem'.
I am a little puzzled by your view of what science is: is it because
you are a philosopher? For me 'philopsophy' is between science and
metaphysics: why didn't you choose 'philosophy' in your examples?
You do not want to see the point: the fact you are taking the example
of the most complex extant terrestrial systems which is the result of
more than 4 billion years of Darwinian evolution and that it is far
easier that to make a distinction with minerals than for prions, for
"The miraculous moment when etc."
Sorry, but I do not understand your objection and what you are meaning
by "Facts not admitted in evidence!": can you specify it?
Fasifiability of the concept of life:
"Black-or-white fallacy is a false dilemma fallacy that unfairly
limits you to only two choices" (Internet Encyclopedia of
The distinction between nonliving and living systems is not a false
dilemma fallacy: it is necessary if you want to know something about
the origin of life.
As, for me, it is not possible to make such a distinction this is the
reason why I suggest to work on the origin of Darwinian evolution
instead, as you seem to do in your article entitled "Selection without
replicators: the origin of genes, and the replicator/interactor
distinction in etiobiology" but I would like to read it before, to be
sure, because the abstract is not so clear.
"Really? I had no idea"
Don't be too condescending: I am doing research in this domain too
- the paragraphs "Lipid
world" and "Origin of Darwinian evolution rather than origin of