Two comments. Your use of the term "philosophical quagmire"
appears to be a pejorative. Maybe you don't mean it that way though.
Do you eschew all philosophical discussions?
"" they are chemicals found
only in biological systems.""
That is interesting. Do I understand, then, that a "biological chemical"
is of absolutely no use in a non-biological environment? Or (more
likely) that they are never found outside of a biological environment?
Assuming the latter -- is this an absolute statement? (Just curious).
>>if we define abiogenesis as the creation of biological
material from non-biological material using non-biological processes,
then
the Miller-Urey experiments, thermal copolymerization and the Wohler
experiment count as abiogenetic events.>>
Of course they do. And if we define the word abiogenesis differently,
using it to refer to, explicitly, the assumed process which operated to
develop life from non life, then the two experiments may, or may not,
have anything to do with it. And that's the only point I was discussing
(or trying to discuss) with Joseph.
-----------------------
Me: " As I mention above, there is a definitional problem."
You: "Only because you find it difficult to abandon your vitalistic
bias."
Again, is this a pejorative? It certainly seems like one. If I claim the
label "vitalist," it is OK to call me one. Otherwise it is not
appropriate. I neither claim, nor disclaim, the term, BTW; I have
insufficient data to do either and insufficient interest to gather said
data.
---------------------------
Me:"It is not whether I use 'scientific terminology or not,' but how we
would
agree on the question(s) under discussion."
You: "How can we discuss the questions if we are using different
terminology? And since the questions are scientific, why shouldn't we
use scientific
terminology?"
We can't discuss the question (intelligibly) using different definitions.
That is the root, IMHO, of 90% of most LISTSERV arguments. You have to
both understand and accept where I am coming from, and I you. Then we
have to agree on definitions. Only then can we go ahead.
I'm trying, Kevin. (Some folks might say I am VERY trying!) < G >
Me: "I used the word 'substantive' above; I think I'll stand by it, as
correct
in the every-day language. The parallel I can think of in physics is the
word 'work.' If I were to say (to a non-physicist in a philosophical
discussion) that a person standing around holding a heavy load without
moving it was not performing any work, I'd be right scientifically but
ludicrous in a general conversation."
You: "If you are having a philosophical discussion, then scientific
definitions
are in appropriate (though "every-day" definitions are inaccurate and I
couldn't even imagine what the philosophical definition of work would
be),
but we are not having a philosophical discussion, we are having a
scientific
one, so scientific definitions are very appropriate, whether they
contradict
"every-day language" or not. It's that simple.
You hit the key there, my friend. You are talking "science," I am talking
"philosophy." I will not talk "science" with you for I lack the expertise
in the field under discussion to do so. I wish I could! Sorry about that.
That does not mean I will not listen to your ideas. It just means you
have to listen harder to mine!
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]