[mgeorgoulo]

I bet every biology student has struggled with the introductory "what is life" chapter, full of conflicting definitions.

It is so difficult to define life because there is nothing to be defined. There are complex stuff and simple stuff. We tend to call things that exhibit a certain degree of complexity "alive", but that's just a word.

Can't remember who wrote the perfect definition of Biology: "The study of complex things". There's a great deal of wisdom in that.

[nonbel]

Yes, I logged in to say the same. There can be mutliple definitions of life, each useful for different purposes.

It is like those people trying to figure out how many types of cells there are in the human body. There is no "right" or "true" answer, only useful ones. All these categories are artificial.

[creep]

I've always believed rocks are alive, if that counts.

[jquip]

Much to fathom in those words... :)

[tome]

> Can't remember who wrote the perfect definition of Biology: "The study of complex things". There's a great deal of wisdom in that.

Human society is complex, but it would not normally be considered biology.

[mgeorgoulo]

I bet a super-intelligent alien ethologist would interpret our society as a living thing.

I'm almost sure there are anthropologists who share the same view :)

The study of multi-organism systems: populations, ecosystems and the like is commonly associated with Biology, or a branch (Ecology). They will go as far as "biosphere", in an attempt to study the entire planet.

[pc86]

Society isn't one thing, so perhaps a better definition would be "Biology is the study of a complex thing?" Regardless, pedantry.

[cryptoz]

Humans are billions of things. One human is composed of billions of different organisms.

[Latty]

To continue the pedantry - what makes society not one thing, but a human one thing? That seems like a matter of perspective.

[pluma]

I was going to joke it's about medium sized things but size is not a reasonable distinction (neither absolute size nor number of "parts") and you quickly run into the problem how organisations (i.e. groups of humans acting together) or machines (e.g. a car) are fundamentally different.

I guess the definition really is pretty fuzzy and arbitrary. It's "obvious" why a bunny is biology and a car or company is not, but it's not quite so obvious why a virus or an android isn't.

Heck, xenobiology seems to be inherently problematic because alien life would defy all classification. Imagine the "xenomorph" from the Alien universe. Would that be considered a reptile? Is it even a vertebrate? What animal rights legislation would apply to it if any? Would a "grey" count as a person? We like to justify these laws with biological categories but what do we do when faced with situations where the categories break down?

EDIT: Is an artificial, viable sheep-human hybrid an animal or a human?

[Latty]

> We like to justify these laws with biological categories but what do we do when faced with situations where the categories break down?

Change them to suit the world as we understand it.

The reality is that classifications as strict rules are a fantasy we choose to believe in, but at the end of the day, classifications are descriptions, and so we have to mutate them to help us describe things as best we can.

The reality is we work to the level of detail and accuracy we need. Rigidity in labels and classification is probably a sign of a lack of understanding, because almost everything ends up being broken down more at some point, and exceptions are found that break the rules.

[woodandsteel]

>Human society is complex, but it would not normally be considered biology.

Reality is organized in levels of complexity. Society is composed of living creatures, so at least you should say it is life-based. The big debate is how and where you draw the line between the non-living and the living.

[factsaresacred]

Formal fallacy.

That biology can be called 'the study of complex things' does not imply that all complex things fall under biology. It's silly to even have to point this out.

[tome]

> That biology can be called 'the study of complex things' does not imply that all complex things fall under biology.

Doesn't it? How could it not? Can you give me another example from common parlance of the form "X is the study of Y" where many Y do not fall under X?

[woodandsteel]

No, it's not a formal fallacy. "Apples are red, therefore everything red is an apple" would be. But the word "is" here being used to indicate definition, not characteristic.