Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
1–10 of 26 posts
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#2I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#3I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than philosophy itself. Look at the discussion on "life substance" (I forgot the term) before we learn how to synthesize organic compound as an example. Otherwise, the concurrent philosophical text on conscious and intelligence would be another case where answer would likely be explain by science.
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#4I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
A lot of biology is dedicated to these taxonomic categorization debates that don't actually mean anything.
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#5I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than philosophy itself. Look at the discussion on "life substance" (I forgot the term) before we learn how to synthesize organic compound as an example. Otherwise, the concurrent philosophical text on conscious and intelligence would be another case where answer wou…
you mean 'elan vital'?
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#6I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
Philosophy can change what categories count as 'life'. Science can show us surprising category shifts, life forms that aren't what we thought. Both are needed. There's a lot of weird mechanisms out there.
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#7I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
A lot of biology is dedicated to these taxonomic categorization debates that don't actually mean anything.
I would not be so harsh on biologists, but I do agree that we waste far too much time arguing over garbage like this. As I used to tell my students taxonomy is just a tool to help humans make some sense of all the complexity in living systems, but it is not real.
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#8I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than philosophy itself. Look at the discussion on "life substance" (I forgot the term) before we learn how to synthesize organic compound as an example. Otherwise, the concurrent philosophical text on conscious and intelligence would be another case where answer wou…
This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy. Everyone is engaged in philosophy, including scientists themselves, and mostly poorly.
Scientists in considering what data signifies life are themselves taking as given some concept 'life' - ie. their first step is philosophical (as ever). You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect.
It is possible to refine the method of judging the best concepts, and of refining the questions which lead to these judgements, and of the method of making the best deicisons with respect to them. This task is philosophy. And "incorrect philosophy" of the past such as the vital force was a philosophy of an incorrect science - not somehow a "pure philosophy" that had gone wrong.
A philosophy of a better science produces a better philosophy (and a better science).
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#9I thought the definition of life was a matter philosophical, not scientific, debate. How does one "find evidence" to support an open philosophical argument?
Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than philosophy itself. Look at the discussion on "life substance" (I forgot the term) before we learn how to synthesize organic compound as an example. Otherwise, the concurrent philosophical text on conscious and intelligence would be another case where answer wou…
I think "vital force" is the term you might be looking for. While almost any scientist would just chuckle at the idea, remnants of it are still quite common in modern philosophy.
Re: Study of protein folds adds to evidence that viruses are alive and ancient
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nothing specific to the article here, but in general I believe philosophical question tends to be explain or made obsolete by scientific discovery rather than philosophy itself. Look at the discussion on "life substance" (I forgot the term) before we learn how to synthesize organic compound as an example. Otherwise, the concurrent philosophical text on conscious and intelligence would be another case where answer wou…
This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy. Everyone is engaged in philosophy, including scientists themselves, and mostly poorly. Scientists in considering what data signifies life are themselves taking as given some concept 'life' - ie. their first step is philosophical (as ever). You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then…
> This is a common view amongst people who have never studied philosophy
I really should take offence here with this statement ;).
>You may say whatever a decision a scientist makes on concepts such as these is obviously the best - but then history would show you totally incorrect.
That wasn't what I meant at all. I meant it is normal for scientific evidence to be part of answer for philosophical question, and there is no conflict to be found with that. In fact, up until the middle of last century when science becomes too specialized, it's fairly normal for scientist and mathematicians to also be engaging in lot of philosophy (Bertrand Russell and Hilbert comes to mind). Several branches of logics are also intertwined with philosophy development. The seemingly separation of science and philosophy nowadays is more a matter of specialization than anything (there is a quote on this).
"Vital force" was an incorrect scientific hypothesis, but the philosophical question of "is there anything fundamentally difference between life and non-life objects" is answered by scientific advancement. And I said that specific philosophical questions can be made obsolete, just as scientific questions can be made obsolete and irrelevant. That is no indictment on either philosophy or the scientific method.
From my understanding, science is more the concern of facts, and philosophy is the framework for study and interpretation of those facts ("truths", if you will).