My insistence upon using the proper definition of abiogenesis is no
different from my insisting upon using the proper definition of entropy, or
gravity, or polypeptide, or any any other scientific terminology. It is
simply impossible to have a useful discussion of any topic -- even a
philosophical one -- if the terms cannot be properly defined. You want to
define abiogenesis as the creation of life from non-life, but you cannot
define life, so how can your definition of abiogenesis be useful? At least
with the scientific definition of life we can then make a definition of
abiogenesis that is useful in a discussion.
As for POV, I understand yours better than you think; I've run into so many
times in the past 25 years I almost know it by heart. I started out trying
to engage it in useful discussions and quickly found myself in the role of
Peleus battling Thetis. The definitions your POV tries to use are so
indistinct that trying to develop effective responses to arguments based on
them is well-near impossible. Every time I thought I understood a
definition well enough to effectively counter it, it changed: the people
who used it would simply claim I didn't understand it, then offer a new
version in place of the old version I had been debating. It got so
frustrating after awhile that I would quit the discussion, thus allowing the
other side to claim victory by default, even though nothing had been
resolved.
Since then I have required that definitions be specified, and that the
proper literary, philosophical or scientific definitions be used depending
upon whether the context was literary, philosophical or scientific. Even
that didn't always help, because often an opponent would begin using one
definition for context, then switch to another, either because they were
loosing rhetorical ground with the former or to take advantage of the
confusion caused by arguing two definitions at once. That's why I now also
insist that the context be specified as well.
However, I will also insist that the most appropriate context be used
whenever possible. If the topic of abiogenesis were truly a philosophical
topic I would be more than happy to discuss it with you in that context,
provided we could agree on definitions, in which case I would more than
likely agree to use yours. However, as I tried to point out with Hegel,
discussing scientific topics in a philosophical context is futile, and since
I believe that abiogenesis is more properly a scientific topic than a
philosophical one, I will not discuss it otherwise.
Making these insistences causes most people to react as you do: claim that
I will not consider another POV and refuse to debate me. A few brave souls
agree with my insistences, however, and then we have glorious debates, about
half of which I have lost (by my count). So I do not agree with your
implication that I am closed-minded simply because I insist on establishing
certain ground rules. I admit that makes me appear dogmatic, but any good
seeker after truth is going to appear dogmatic when he or she stands up for
what he or she believes is the truth. That's why I never took our debate
personally; I understood that you were defending what you saw as truth as
well. It was only when you made it personal that things deteriorated from
there. I must share some of the blame, though, because I should have
recognized what was happening and stopped it before it went too far. I can
only hope that as time passes your anger will cool and you will be able to
forgive me.
Until then I will remain your friend.
Kevin L. O'Brien