" I have taken to
heart the messages of Jacob Bronowski's lecture "Knowledge or Certainty",
which are that there is no perfect knowledge nor any way to obtain same,
and
that the more you know the less certain you become that what you know is
perfect or even all there is to know."
I am intrigued by this citation. The message I understand but that
particular incarnation of it is new to me. If you have book citation, I'd
appreciate it.
Just had a little time this afternoon as my son took the grand kids off
somewhere (at age 67, a little play with a 3 and 7 year old goes a long
way), and so I decided to look up a few things.
My dictionary is that of Mirriam-Webster, the Third New International
Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. My wife and I, both in
retirement, do some writing now and again, and we seem to be consulting
it on one account or another almost daily! The copyright is 1993; the
"principle copyright" is 1961.
I hold no brief for this dictionary, BTW; we have found it useful but I
am sure there are some who may well have ones they think better.
The following is just data reporting -- not argumentation.
1. I looked up the definition of "work" since I had made that analogy.
Definition 2c under "work" contained the definition I was referring to as
part of mechanical physics -- the transference of energy. Of course,
there were a lot of other definitions; ones more frequently used! I found
it interesting that the dictionary DID include the definition commonly
used in physics.
2. I looked up "abiogenesis." Here, I was disappointed. The full citation
read as if Huxley, himself, had written it 100 years ago.
Abiogenesis -- the origination of living organisms from lifeless matter
-- called also "spontaneous generation."
No mention of alternate uses, least of all "scientific ones."
As a matter of fact, even the 1894 EB I cited awhile ago had it better --
I think it said something like "obsolete" when it mentioned spontaneous
generation. In any event, When I was discussing this with Joseph it was
clearly this definition, crude as it may seem to a biochemist, that I had
in mind.
Perhaps the answer here is that the MW dictionary people have "caught up"
to science as far as physics, at least elementary physics, is concerned,
but have not caught up to biochemistry. I can understand that.
The other word I pursued was "vitalism." Here is what I found:
Vitalism: 1. A doctrine that the functions of a living organism are due
to a vital principle (as an elan vital or entelechy) distinct from
physiochemical forces.
2. A doctrine that the processes of life are not explicable by
the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part
self-determining instead of mechanistically determined.
Vitalist: A believer in vitalism.
Elan vital: 1. The vital force or impulse of life.
2. The creative principle and fundamental reality (held by
Bergson) to be immanent in all organisms and responsible for evolution.
Entelechy: 1a. The full realization of form-giving cause (Aristotle)
1b The form that actuates this realization (also Aristotle)
2a. Something that contains or realizes an end or final cause
2b A supposititious immanent but immaterial agency held by some
vitalists to regulate or direct the vital processes of an organism toward
the achievement of maturity.
Now -- what do I conclude from all this?
First, when Joseph began equating abiogenesis with spontaneous
generation, at least one respected dictionary was available to him to
confirm his assertion. The fact that I (and others) don't think the two
ought to be equated is pertinent, of course, but that is why agreement on
definitions is so all important.
Second, From the viewpoint that I am a Christian, and wholly wedded to
the mind set that a supernatural being, God, is the creator of all that
is, I am a vitalist. If someone says he is both a Christian and not a
vitalist (in that sense), I would be puzzled by that.
I do not fit, however, the definition of "vitalism" above.
However, turning the vitalism definition around;
Non-Vitalism: 1. A doctrine that the functions of a living organism are
not due to a vital principle (as an elan vital or entelechy) distinct
from physiochemical forces.
2. A doctrine that the processes of life are explicable by the
laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is mechanistically
determined.
Non-Vitalist: A believer in non-vitalism.
I find that I do not fit that definition either.
I am not a Vitalist.
I am not a non-Vitalist.
I guess I'll leave it at that.
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]