Re: [Mind's Eye] Re: I wrote a post on "Why science can’t define LIFE".

Nice point Vam, we could theorize a lot but much of what we know comes
from examining and describing our immediate environment. In my
experience inquiry is a good pedagogic model for this very reason, it
calls attention to where ignorance lies so we can form better
questions. In the process we learn to interact with the process of
building knowledge and interacting in that domain, I think Archytas
alludes to this in another recent topic chiding the attempt at
training students (vs teaching?). I know it sounds dangerously
reductionist to say "know thyself and all else follows" but when the
chain falls in place there's no denying.

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 1:40 AM, Vam <atewari2007@gmail.com> wrote:
> Define ? It only describes, as do writers, or explains, as do
> psychologists et al !
>
> Like " leaders," it takes us from one point to another whether, as of
> now, we want to or not... *sigh*
>
> On Nov 11, 3:28 am, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kuhan - I took a look and found some interesting angles.  Maybe you
>> could do a bit of a summary and see if that interests anyone here?
>> Otherwise I'll leave your message up and can it if no one is.  We
>> don't generally allow cross-posting - but at least this isn't elixir
>> of life on planet Zog.
>>
>> On Nov 10, 4:16 pm, Kuhan Chandru <nahuk8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Comments please athttp://cellrelics.com/2011/11/10/why-science-cant-define-life/