The person who decides to become a scientist does so on the basis of belief and desire, not on the basis of a demonstration (knowledge rather than belief, and knowledge derived from other knowledge). This decision can be a reasonable decision... albeit a leap in the dark (note, by the way, that I said "dark," not pitch-black). This sort of reasonableness makes possible the sort of reasoning engaged in by scientists. And perhaps, at the end of the day, when it comes to applying the fruits of scientific discovery, a similar leap in the dark is called for. In such a case, concrete beliefs about how to satisfy my most important desires are the beginning and end (in the sense of "purpose") of scientific inquiry.
How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
Comments