Is defining life pointless? Operational definitions at the frontiers of biology

Citation data:

Synthese, ISSN: 0039-7857, Page: 1-28

Publication Year:
2017
Usage 55
Downloads 55
Captures 5
Readers 5
Social Media 80
Shares, Likes & Comments 64
Tweets 16
Repository URL:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/id/eprint/12988
DOI:
10.1007/s11229-017-1397-9
Author(s):
Leonardo Bich, Sara Green
Publisher(s):
Springer Nature, Springer (Springer Science+Business Media B.V.)
Tags:
Arts and Humanities, Social Sciences
Most Recent Tweet View All Tweets
article description
Despite numerous and increasing attempts to define what life is, there is no consensus on necessary and sufficient conditions for life. Accordingly, some scholars have questioned the value of definitions of life and encouraged scientists and philosophers alike to discard the project. As an alternative to this pessimistic conclusion, we argue that critically rethinking the nature and uses of definitions can provide new insights into the epistemic roles of definitions of life for different research practices. This paper examines the possible contributions of definitions of life in scientific domains where such definitions are used most (e.g., Synthetic Biology, Origins of Life, Alife, and Astrobiology). Rather than as classificatory tools for demarcation of natural kinds, we highlight the pragmatic utility of what we call operational definitions that serve as theoretical and epistemic tools in scientific practice. In particular, we examine contexts where definitions integrate criteria for life into theoretical models that involve or enable observable operations. We show how these definitions of life play important roles in influencing research agendas and evaluating results, and we argue that to discard the project of defining life is neither sufficiently motivated, nor possible without dismissing important theoretical and practical research.

This article has 0 Wikipedia mention.