"The last time I worked on a Habitat for Humanity house, I was part of a
crew that **put up** ceiling drywall. If you have not done that -- it
involves **raising** fairly heavy 4x12 1/2" thick plasterboard sections to a
place 8 feet above the floor and **screwing** them into the joists."
"When I came home, if friend wife asked 'did you do a lot of work?' I'd have
to answer her (scientifically) 'no,' for work = force times distance in
physics!"
But actually you did do scientific work. Look back at my opening quote. I
emphasized certain words. These demonstrate that you did apply a force over
a distance.
"But philosophically (and actually) I assure I did a lot of 'work.'"
But I don't see a philosophical "definition" here, or even a philosophical
argument, just an anecdote.
Here is the deal, Kevin. In most sciences, precision of definition is all
important, and so, in physics, work = force x distance. But the word 'work'
admits of a lot more definitions, and we have to deal with these too!"
Not in a scientific or philosophical discussion; they are too inaccurate.
Let me be blunt: I don't believe you can supply a philosophical definition
of work because work is a scientific topic and philosophers abandoned the
idea of trying to describe work philosophically when mechanical physicists
described it mathematically. So all you can offer are subjective
definitions that may work in everyday life for communicating a basic idea,
but could never work in science or philosophy because they are too vague.
The same is true for your implied definition of life. Let me quote again
from _The Oxford Companion to Philosophy_ under the entry for life (this
comes from the essay "What is life?" by JBS Haldane -- a biologist --
published in _Philosophy of Biology_ edited by Michael Ruse): "This [life],
the distinguishing features of organisms, is best thought of as involving
some kind of complex organization, giving an ability to use energy sources
for self-maintenance and reproduction [basic metabolism involving
biomolecules]. Efforts to find some distinct substance characterizing life
[vitalism] have proven as futile as they have been heroic. The one thing
which is clear is that any analysis of life must accept and appreciate that
there will be many borderline instances, like viruses. Inconvenient as this
may be for the lexicographer, this is precisely what evolution theory would
lead us to expect." And I might add, what abiogenesis would lead us to
expect as well.
"In my discussion with Joseph, I was deliberately using the word
'abiogenesis' in the way Huxley defined it in 1870, to mean that process
which we assume (scientifically) to have taken place long ago, a process
which we hold (scientifically) to have led from non-life to life."
Note how old that definition is, older even than most of what we would learn
about metabolic processes. It is hopelessly obsolete. Were Huxley alive
today I'm sure he would reword it in keeping with modern biological
knowledge.
One (or more) specific processes which we assume happened. It is not 'wrong'
to use that same word for present day experiments,..."
The problem isn't the word; the problem is that you insist on using an
obsolete definition that no longer has any foundation in biology.
"...but one needs to recognize the prior usage and not force fit today's
definition onto the same word used in a different sense."
But that "different sense" is based on an obsolete view of life that fails
the test against physical (or biological) reality. If the definition of a
scientific term become obsolete, you change the definition. It's that
simple. You want to hang onto an obsolete definition because it allows you
to avoid scientific reality. That reminds me of how many creationists
define entropy. They insist on using subjective, inaccurate definitions
because that allows them to construct arguments that supposedly disprove
evolution, whereas if they were forced to use the scientific definitions
they couldn't make those arguments, because the scientific definitions do
not contradict evolution.
"That is why I carefully defined 'abiogenesis(1) and abiogenesis(2)'. They
refer to different things. The first to one or more presumably historical
processes, the second to a multitude of present day lab procedures, both
real and speculative."
Both of which we now know from biological science are one and the same,
regardless of what some obsolete, 130 year old definition might otherwise
lead you to believe.
Kevin L. O'Brien