[alex_young]

Isn’t the question of just-what-is-life-anyway more of a worry for linguists and philosophers rather than scientists?

“Life” as it were, is a concept invented with either the intention of distinguishing “us” from the rocks around ourselves, or, if you’re being slightly less charitable, giving “us” a way to insult the, um, others.

Sure, drawing some line in the sand between mice and boulders is a great idea, but it’s a pretty arbitrary one, especially if you have to strap a bunch of historical baggage on it.

This grand debate is almost as fun as what-constitutes-a-planet. We should do that one again.

[BlueTemplar]

Each scientific paradigm works better when boundaries are clear and scientists don't misunderstand each other.

Hence the current astrophysical paradigm where we now have planets and dwarf planets (which aren't planets).

[snowwrestler]

This seems like just another way of saying we don’t understand life scientifically yet.

When we do finally agree on a mathematically rigorous definition of life, it will seem obvious in retrospect and scientists will kick philosophers off the field, just like they did with previous subjects like the composition of matter, the movement of heavenly bodies, etc.

Every scientific topic has to go through a messy definition phase before its study can be properly organized. People studied heat and cold for a long time before they really knew what they were, for example.

[BlueTemplar]

Both geocentrism with epicycles and phlogiston were clearly defined as theories. We have just changed paradigms.

(Also by phlogiston's time, philosophers and natural philosophers = physicists had already pretty much split.)