I would say that those who are concerned with good scholarship would not promote an argument based on something they cannot define.
Arthur: <<You all appear to be interested in the specifics of his definition, but not in what he has to say. Please explain how your particular quest for truth works. I could extract certain
concepts from his book and post them, but the point is you should be eager
to read his entire argument for yourselves. It sounds to me like this has
boiled down to semantics rather than science. >>
Semantics are everything when discussing abused concepts such as 'information'. And I thought it was your argument we were discussing. Why should WE be reading this book to find out about the definition which is fundamental to the argument ?