With al due respect to my biologist friends, that seems like a peculiar
use of the word "living." However, I can understand how it came to be. In
physics, we have a collection of these "technical terms" also, and I know
it can confuse the non-practitioners when we use them.
What it says to me is that, if a single (or even a collection) urea
molecule is defined as "living," then we need another word to describe
that attribute for organisms such as dogs and insects and bacteria and
such.
I then wrote: "Since I would not agree that urea is living matter, not
in any substantive meaning of the word, I have to modify the above
somewhat."
And you replied: "Then I guess the question is, are you going to use
scientific terminology or use your own?"
Fair question. As I mention above, there is a definitional problem. It is
not whether I use "scientific terminology or not," but how we would agree
on the question(s) under discussion.
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.
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]