Some weeks ago I had occasion to correct someone for noting that SARS-CoV-2 lives on surfaces for however-many days. "Of course viruses are not technically alive," I suggested. Since then, every doctor and health professional on TV has used the same "lives on surfaces" that I disparaged! Just English usage I thought to myself. Randall Munroe has now added to my dismay by placing viruses on the "alive" side of his latest xkcd: https://xkcd.com/2307/ I'll counter with the excellent recent Kurtzgesagt on the topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImCld9YubE
Perhaps alive/dead is a false dichotomy. At best it there is a line it is blurry. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/ On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:07 AM Hans Havermann <gladhobo@bell.net> wrote:
Some weeks ago I had occasion to correct someone for noting that SARS-CoV-2 lives on surfaces for however-many days. "Of course viruses are not technically alive," I suggested. Since then, every doctor and health professional on TV has used the same "lives on surfaces" that I disparaged! Just English usage I thought to myself. Randall Munroe has now added to my dismay by placing viruses on the "alive" side of his latest xkcd:
I'll counter with the excellent recent Kurtzgesagt on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImCld9YubE _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
As indeed are conscious/not conscious, male/female, and probably most distinctions that practicality encourages us to model binarily in everyday usage --- creating in the process fertile ground for crackpots, zealots and fundamentalists of every persuasion to flourish, alas! WFL On 5/17/20, James Buddenhagen <jbuddenh@gmail.com> wrote:
Perhaps alive/dead is a false dichotomy. At best it there is a line it is blurry. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:07 AM Hans Havermann <gladhobo@bell.net> wrote:
Some weeks ago I had occasion to correct someone for noting that SARS-CoV-2 lives on surfaces for however-many days. "Of course viruses are not technically alive," I suggested. Since then, every doctor and health professional on TV has used the same "lives on surfaces" that I disparaged! Just English usage I thought to myself. Randall Munroe has now added to my dismay by placing viruses on the "alive" side of his latest xkcd:
I'll counter with the excellent recent Kurtzgesagt on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImCld9YubE _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Agree with Fred. But where does the line pass between crackpots and non-crackpots? Best, É.
Le 18 mai 2020 à 02:53, Fred Lunnon <fred.lunnon@gmail.com> a écrit :
As indeed are conscious/not conscious, male/female, and probably most distinctions that practicality encourages us to model binarily in everyday usage --- creating in the process fertile ground for crackpots, zealots and fundamentalists of every persuasion to flourish, alas!
WFL
On 5/17/20, James Buddenhagen <jbuddenh@gmail.com> wrote: Perhaps alive/dead is a false dichotomy. At best it there is a line it is blurry. See: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-viruses-alive-2004/
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 2:07 AM Hans Havermann <gladhobo@bell.net> wrote:
Some weeks ago I had occasion to correct someone for noting that SARS-CoV-2 lives on surfaces for however-many days. "Of course viruses are not technically alive," I suggested. Since then, every doctor and health professional on TV has used the same "lives on surfaces" that I disparaged! Just English usage I thought to myself. Randall Munroe has now added to my dismay by placing viruses on the "alive" side of his latest xkcd:
I'll counter with the excellent recent Kurtzgesagt on the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QImCld9YubE _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
In junior high school in the early '60's, I grew a large variety of crystals for a science project. I concluded that my crystals met many/most definitions of "alive", hence the whole discussion was bogus. (Too bad Schrodinger didn't use a crystal instead of a cat...) At 12:06 AM 5/17/2020, Hans Havermann wrote:
Some weeks ago I had occasion to correct someone for noting that SARS-CoV-2 lives on surfaces for however-many days. "Of course viruses are not technically alive," I suggested. Since then, every doctor and health professional on TV has used the same "lives on surfaces" that I disparaged! Just English usage I thought to myself. Randall Munroe has now added to my dismay by placing viruses on the "alive" side of his latest xkcd:
I'll counter with the excellent recent Kurtzgesagt on the topic:
participants (5)
-
Fred Lunnon -
Hans Havermann -
Henry Baker -
James Buddenhagen -
Éric Angelini